Health Care Protests: Obama Responds

I wish she would just go away.

I would like to see President Obama go on the offensive with this. He needs to campaign for health care reform even harder than he did for the Presidency. President Obama needs to get out there, visit every state, and face these liars down.

I wish they would all just go away.

Giving people the time to read through and analyze the document would help. I got a copy from here and the first impression I got was, legislation needs some serious formatting reform.

Still, it is available, but it is long, it is involved, and while I haven't really had the chance to give it a good reading, I would not be surprised to find contradictions and errors.

This is really something that needs to be discussed, honestly and openly. Accusing the other side of all sorts of nefarious misdeeds is no help at all. Sarah Palin did err in her statement, that I shall acknowledge. But, when people have no real knowledge of what a document says, of course they are going to make mistakes regarding that.

The problem with the Health Care Bill is that it covers too much. It does too much. I see sections in the bill that would improve health care and government coverage thereof, but crammed all together into one package makes it hard to study, hard to assess, and hard to discuss. Instead of a series of bills we could discuss, enact, or reject in a reasonable amount of time after debate between reasonable people; we get a bloated lump of paper too big to study and too big to assimilate in the allotted time.

Add in the demonization both sides are putting on. Accusing those you disagree with of being monsters and depraved. I don't need to accuse President Obama of being elected illegally to be against his programs and policies. Being a natural born citizen of the U.S. does not make him automatically right about a subject. (Besides which, even if he had been born in Kenya, his mother, being a natural born citizen of the United States herself and 18 years of age at the time of his birth, would make him a natural born citizen. So even if the Birthers could prove he was born in a foreign land, they would still not have proven he is not a natural born citizen.)

As far as I can see medical reform must first start with legal reform. Tightening the rules of evidence in civil cases, putting a mechanism in place to determine if a case has any merit and should go to trial. Extending the right to declare a case frivelous and a litigant vexatious to all courts would be a good idea. Jury reform is a must in any case. As you can see, it's not just a matter of establishing the principle of "loser pays".

Getting insurance out of the business of covering all medical expenses is another goal of mine. When people don't have to pay for something directly they lose sight of the costs. No coverage of basic medical care. Doctor visits, antibiotics, antiseptics, things like that. Reserve medical insurance for catastrophic and long term conditions. In addition, base fees and other payments on ability to pay.

Though in the long run the only sure way to lower health care costs is by coming up with better, thus less expensive treatments. Tuberculosis used to be very expensive to treat, with antibiotics the cost of treatment dropped to a pittance compared to the old costs. Come up with better ways to treat cancer, heart conditions, stroke etc. and you will---and we have---see costs fall.

I could go on about how self-destructive some people are, and how that affects health care costs and health care availability. I could go on about how we use facilities such as emergency rooms has changed how we use basic medical care and utilize access to our doctors. But this comment of mine has gone on far enough.

The point I really want to make is, don't demonize. Don't demonize the other because he is against what you're for. Don't demonize the other because he demonizes you. It's annoying, it's a waste of time, and it annoys the demon.

I would be curious as to what demonization the left has accused the right of doing.
As someone who has lived in the UK, Australia and the US, I just want to say one thing. National health care does not mean to private health care. Both the UK and Australia have private insurance. You get private elective health coverage faster (sometimes) but mostly it's for other things, such as a private room etc. in addition to the government care. Those with ultra big bucks travel to the USA-while those in the USA with no bucks die on the street.

Alan, if reporting the facts equates to demonizing, that's hardly the fault of the person doing the reporting. And people in the U.S. have hardly lost sight of the cost of health care. That's precisely why so many of them do without it.

I would like to see President Obama go on the offensive with this.

It must be hard to go on the offensive about this, when you started out by walking into negotiations with the insurance industry and ceding ground from the get-go. Obama and the Democrats are fighting a PR battle over the merits of a government role in health coverage. They might as well have had the balls to actually propose such a plan, since that, predictably, is where the fight has ended up.

As far as I can see medical reform must first start with legal reform.

This really isn't about "medical" reform. It's about insurance reform. Even if the bogeyman of "frivolous lawsuits" had any merit, the issue of the cost of delivery of care is not what's preventing people from getting the care they need. With the current system in place or with the Democrat's proposed "reform," any cost-saving would simply mean higher profits for insurers.

When people don't have to pay for something directly they lose sight of the costs.

This must be an example of a statement that that has such solid internal logic that one need not even look to the real world for verification. I mean, I pay absolutely nothing in premiums, and my co-pays are minuscule. So, naturally, I spend all my free time at the freaking doctor's office because that's my idea of a good time. Same with my coworkers, who also enjoy the great health coverage. Nothing ever gets done in our organization because everyone's living it up, getting checkups and antibiotics. Please. Go out and meet some real human beings.

No coverage of basic medical care. Doctor visits, antibiotics, antiseptics, things like that.

Because it's in the interest of public health (not to mention the continued functioning of our glorious system of free enterprise) to have a large chunk of the populace ill, infirm & hacking germs at us all the time.

Getting insurance out of the business of covering all medical expenses is another goal of mine.

Mine too. I'd like them to be out of the business of covering all medically-necessary care completely. I know what a doctor does. I know what nurse does. I know what techs and orderlies do. I can't figure out what health care service insurance companies provide, but somehow they make a killing by standing between people and their health care, and charging for access.

We will be able to cover everyone - and make sure that everyone actually has access to the care they're covered for - by streamlining the payment process, eliminating the wasteful, profiteering insurance companies, and having Medicare make all payments.

Stephanie,

The Left has accused the Right of being racist and Nazis. The Right has accused the Left of wanting to murder old folks, and of being Nazis themselves. That is the demonization i'm talking about.

The big problem I see in this debate is that people are saying things about the legislation without sourcing their statements. Take the accusation from the Right that the bill calls for killing old people. Apparently that comes from a section where the Feds are supposed to set up a mechanism whereby requests for treatment are to be assessed and approved or declined based on quality of life issues etc. It might be in there, it may not. But, the sheer size of the thing makes it hard to find out where it is, much less if it does what people are saying it does.

Insurance, public and private, already approves and denies treatment when it decides to pay for a treatment or not. Justify it however you want, that's what insurance is doing. The fear from certain quarters is that this will become formalized should the bill pass, and the criteria of effectiveness and appropriateness will be joined by an age criterium. Namely, is the patient too old to benefit from the treatment?

Equating Obama to Hitler is rather stupid, he's more like Mussolini. Calling the Right a bunch of Nazis is rather stupid as well, they're acting more like Anarchists. Invective does nothing to advance the argument, and far more to retard or even reverse it.

Passions get intense in situations like this, but acting out on your anger without direction is counterproductive. Learn how to use your anger effectively and you'll make more headway than you are now.

Jn

You said,

Because it's in the interest of public health (not to mention the continued functioning of our glorious system of free enterprise) to have a large chunk of the populace ill, infirm & hacking germs at us all the time.

Are you saying that basic care costs more than people can afford? Where do you live that the cost of basic health care has gotten so high?