Obama - Health Reform & everything else

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Justice, Mar 10, 2009.

  1. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Is an American able to make some brie bullet points that describe the current healthcare system, and what Obama is trying to force through? What's the main holdup? Will doing so bankrupt the country in 20 years' time or something?
     
  2. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Well, those more-then-adequate reasons can be tried against the law, right? :p

    To be honest, I'm still uncertain what to make of the decision to keep Guantanamo in operation. Guantanamo created a problem that cannot solve itself.

    This makes absolute sense. I would become a fundamental terrorist if some forreign power kept me - without trial - under such a prison regime half across the world. Regardless of whether I was a terrorist on beforehand. This is the point Bush et al. didn't understand.

    To react to the second statement; Obama didn't create Guantanamo - he inherited it. I think that's the important difference.
     
  3. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Then by that logic people jailed for murders they didn't commit would be more likely than others to murder. Unless this is a criticism of the Islamic mindset....

    All detainees have been reviewed by a military tribunal, and the fact 500 were released shows they were able to weigh the evidence against them objectively. The reporting on Gitmo has been so amazingly one sided and biased that of COURSE people around the world think it should be closed. After all, we allow them 3 meals a day within Islamic guidelines in food preparation, an exercise yard, the International Red Cross stationed at Gitmo has yet to find one case of abuse, etc etc.

    74 returning to the battlefield means roughly 17-18% had Jihadist tendencies, and there's definitely more because not everyone who commits a crime gets caught.

    Even if Obama didn't create Gitmo, he promised to close it in a year. He didn't. He also promised to hold 9/11 trials in New York. He backed out of that. Obama's handling of the War on Terror as a nuisance criminal matter has upset many Americans, not just conservatives, but centrist and center left voters as well.
     
  4. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Our current healthcare system is pretty complex, but basically it's this.

    Insurance policies are paid for by major companies and corporations for employees. Self employed people obviously have to buy their own. Many people in low income houses can apply for Medicare or Medicaid (depending on how old they are) and have most of their expenses covered by the government already.

    83% of Americans have health insurance in some form. Whether or not it is adequate for their conditions is a matter for debate, but the ultra vast majority of Americans are covered.

    Originally Obama spoke of a single payer health care system (as a Senator). Everyone pays in with taxes, everyone is covered by the US Government. As President he backed the Government Option. That is, the Government would become an insurance company itself, and through taxing the public, would cover Americans that would apply for the Government health plan. Obama many times said 45 million Americans have no health care coverage. That number was highly suspect. http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/entry/936/

    The Government Option has all but died, though it does come up now and again in committee debates. Obama now says he wants to cover only 32 million Americans.
    http://content.usatoday.com/communi...em-leader-we-have-the-votes-on-health-care-/1

    The missing 13 million Americans are believed to be illegal immigrants Obama wanted covered in the first plan. He denied this categorically, but now mysteriously either 13 million people suddenly got health care... or he's finally relented and is not allowing people who don't pay in to the system to benefit from it.

    All Americans would now be required to buy health care. Anyone that doesn't will have to pay a 2.5% penalty in their taxes for not buying health care. Essentially, every American is being taxed. Obama claims it's not a tax, but regardless of what you call it (a fee, an adjustment, whatever) it is the government taking money to fund itself, which is a tax.

    Then of course there is the deal making, arms twisting, backroom deals, etc. Somehow this healthcare bill also became a bill on student loans, and how the US government is the only entity that can grant them. That and a bank in North Dakota. No one else...

    Tried to be flatly objective there. Didn't last long...
     
  5. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    This statement makes so little sense that I choose not to reason against it and, instead, leave it as it is :)

    The military tribunal do not comply with the international and rational laws bound to a fair trial. They cannot be viewed as valid or, indeed, of any value.

    Being imprisoned by a forreign power, on another continent, without fair trial or appeal. Have you actually read Machiavelli?

    Obama is not a absolute ruler. If anything, he understands that there are 300.000.000 people in the US scheming in their own unique way. It means compromises need to be made. Don't do impossible things just because you promised them.

    The alternative can be found in Vladimir Putin.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2010
  6. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    You stated if you weren't a terrorist, you'd become one because you were jailed for being one. People innocent of murder don't become murderers because theywere wrongfully accused. Simple algebraic substitution x=2. Replace accused terrorist with accused murderer. How could it not make sense? Agree or disagree if you'd like.


    You would have a valid argument if a war was not declared. Detainees are being treated 100% within the rights of the Geneva Convention in the course of an actual declared armed conflict. Not liking the conflict has no legal bearing on whether or not the detainees are being treated lawfully.


    Perhaps one shouldn't make absolute promises then and then do nothing to see them to fruition. If Obama was countered left and right by the Republicans, he'd have a case for giving up. He has a majority in the House and Senate, and used to have public support, but the American people did not support his closing of Gitmo or granting terrorists trials paid for taxpayers in New York city.
     
  7. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Justice, I hold you as an intelligent man. It's a good point for making, but it holds no validity whatsoever - and, as I have come to know you, I am sure you understand this.


    The detainees are not declared PoW's. So the state of war doesn't imply a new set of laws; we've discussed this before. And the Geneva Convention doesn't apply. However, the CIA has admited to allowing for interrogation techiques, which have been outlined as being torture under the Geneva convention, so it was not observed. I might be wrong about it, but I think Obama overturned at least some lisence for the CIA to have their own way, which must be said in his credit.

    For what I understand, Obama failed to place some of the prisoners outside Guantanamo. In some cases, the alternative was worse then Guantanamo itself. That doesn't mean he hasn't tried, though.

    But I fear further discussion has very little use. Pride and prejudice stand between us :)
     
  8. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Thanks for the breakdown Justice.

    I do get easily confused though so if you can clarify further though - currently employers pay for employees to have health cover? This new model would require the employees themselves to fund it through taxes? Fund entirely or subsidise the cost to their company?
    So what happens to the money the companies are paying now?

    In Australia we have public hospitals and public healthcare provided by the government. You have the choice to go private in the hope of shorter waiting times, private vs public rooms following surgery, better food and facilities, choice of your own doctor etc. It can also be a mix of both though. My wife and I have basic private health insurance for family cover, yet our daughter was born in a public state hospital and it didn't cost us a single cent for the clinic visits, doctor checkups or the birth itself.
    If we choose to go private for child number 2, it would cost us about $2000 after our private health insurance rebates. So it's back to public hospital for us!

    That said, my wife had post-birth surgery in a private hospital, so we can mix and match.

    Does this equate to anything current or proposed for the US?
     
  9. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Wow. 219-212. Pretty damn close.

     
  10. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Sorry Azuren, this thread is fairly well established. If I strip out the health-related posts from here, it would be all over the place so I merged yours into here.
     
  11. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    Re: Obama - The other side

    Yes and no. Employers can OFFER health care coverage as a benefit, but it is not a requirement. Employers may or may not offer to pay all or part of the cost -- they can offer fully paid benefits to partial payment. Or a "self-directed" benefit plan where for example if you don't need glasses you can opt out of vision coverage for better prescription coverage with no copay. The copay can vary from plan to plan, as well as the level of hospital coverage.

    Medical benefits is really part of the whole compensation package that are part and parcel with wages. The better the employer, the better the benefits.

    The biggest problem isn't the lack of coverage per se -- it's that there is no "standard coverage" where you can almost equate the health care coverage like house insurance -- sometimes you don't know what coverage you really have until you need it.
     
  12. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Oh ffs, get over it! Things like this remind me of a line from the South Park movie - "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"
     
  13. azuren82

    azuren82 Berserk got banned...

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0
    What is MPAA btw, Mub? With that being said tho, South Park humor ftw. :D
     
  14. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    America's movie censorship board.

    Question - to outsiders, in theory, this seems like a good idea. Making healthcare available to your citizens sounds good. We have it in Australia and it's very good to have.

    So what are the main concerns for critics of the plan? That it will bankrupt the country paying for everyone's health cover?

    Hopefully in 20-50-100 years' time, it will have been a success and people will look back at the poor folk of 2009 and earlier who had no health cover and wonder "What were they thinking?" and not "2010 was the beginning of the end for America."
     
  15. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0


    So far my only concern with it is that the bill states that you have to own health insurance by 2014 or you will have to pay a penalty. The first year is $95. The second year (2015) is $325 and the third year is a $695 penalty.

    Other than that I think this entire issue has been blown out of proportion.

    Here's a post of the time line by CNN. Let's hope they didn't leave anything out:


     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  16. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    The reason it made news is that Joe Biden is known for making stupid statements at least once a week. For St. Patrick's day he eulogized the Irish Prime ministers late mother... who is... still alive.
     
  17. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    First of all, since when has the Federal Government had a right to TELL people they have to buy anything? Republicans now are (unsuccessfully I am sure) raising the case that the government has no right forcing citizens to buy any product, and health insurance is a product.

    Second, last I heard the new health bill actually allows for taxes up to 2.5% of a persons income if they don't buy insurance. That could be will over $1000 - 1500 a year in some cases for lower income people like me.

    Third, they claim this bill is deficit neutral, but they are taking taxes for 4 years before the bill is even fully implemented. It's still going to catch up with us. If you pay $1000 rent, but make only $800 a month, even if you get 4 months free, you're out of money 15 months later.

    And when you look at our already failing social programs, Medicare, Welfare, and Social Security, programs which have all gone WAY over budget in just a few decades, we can rightfully assume the same will happen as well to Obamacare.

    The public option was taken out. That was the worst part of the bill. Had that part been implemented, we would have been doomed.
     
  18. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    I don't see where we are disagreeing on this. That's exactly what my problem is with the bill. When I posted the timeline of the bill I put that part in italics which included the 2.5% of a persons income and so forth. So what exactly are we not agreeing on with that?
     
  19. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    My question was more rhetorical and less pointed. My point remains though, this is a tax. Obama promised NO ONE making under $250k a year would be taxed in his administration. Well, he might not call it a tax, but whatever he calls it, a government mandate forces me to buy something I don't want. I don't see how it's any different from being a tax. And it's an increase of possibly thousands of dollars a year, which is no small amount in a difficult recession.

    I foresee people not applying for health insurance, not paying the fines, and DARING the government to arrest them for it. That would be a public relations nightmare like they wouldn't believe.
     
  20. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Can I please add a not here;

    I think it stands as proven that the medical care and health insurance system failed in the US. Private and corporate entities have failed to set up a satisfactory and affordable system for the masses - and increasingly so. What's more, the situation is unique for the developed world. To give you an example; travel health insurances obtained here cover the entire world except for war zones AND... the United States of America. Coverage for the US is about thrice as expensive

    Although I consider myself a liberal (in the sense that I am basically against gouvernment intervention), they have a duty to fulfill when the commercial sector fails. When the free market has proven that the system or services don't work, there's very little for it... Especially when a basic comodity is concerned.