|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:52 pm Post subject: Obama's Health Care Speech |
 |
|
Full Text Here
In particular:
| Quote: |
Insurance executives don�t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it�s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called �Wall Street�s relentless profit expectations.�
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I�ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear � it would only be an option for those who don�t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don�t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can�t fairly compete with the government. And they�d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won�t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
It�s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I�ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn�t be exaggerated � by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end � and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can�t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
|
I'm happy he decided to talk about offering a public option. If he's going to suggest things like mandated insurance purchase, then a non-profit public option needs to be offered to everyone, and it needs to be viable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was a well delivered speech.
Although his plan is not what I prefer, it does seem to address most of the problems in the present system. I still don't like the idea of up to 30% of insurance company income going to profit and expenses, not to actual health care, but that's the system.
He's sticking to his guns about being bipartisan and I think that's necessary. The GOP is backed further into a corner now--and Wilson shouting 'You lie!' (or whatever) doesn't help the opposition. I was glad to see him hit back against the scare tactics; it could have been even stronger.
I'm still puzzled by his strategy of waiting until the House committees are finished with their bills for him to come out with his, but that's a judgement call and maybe it'll work. There's something to be said for the rope-a-dope approach, but I'm not sure it will always work. We'll see.
Anyway, I'll give him an A on the speech. If the final bill he signs looks anything like what he talked about today, I might even raise it to an A+. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Health care is a bucket with holes that are getting larger and the Democrats solution is to pour more water into the bucket (the Republicans are just kneejerk reaction opposition).
If illegal immigrants are using emergency medicine too much and running up costs, why did Congress pass the buck and NOT reform immigration laws in 2005-2006?
If 50 million people is the TOTAL number of people who are uninsured AT SOME POINT during the year, why don't they reform COBRA and other go between insurance programs?
If insurance companies are screwing people, why don't they pass insurance industry reform, i.e. force them to be non profit corporations instead?
His speech was so full of platitudes and meaningless words that sound good but don't mean squat. I really enjoyed the part about creating pools and citing congress as an example. Yeah, 538 people creates a HUGE pool for low prices. What a joke!
The worst part is the idea that all people must have insurance like states require car insurance. If you drive a car, you must have insurance. Okay, fair. But now they are going to hold your feet to the fire just to live? What about those of us that are Americans but live overseas? What are they going to do for us?
Why don't the Democrats focus on the whole problem by handling immigration reform, insurance reform, and every thing else that contributes to this problem. Do that, THEN look at health care and work on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
| If you drive a car, you must have insurance. Okay, fair. |
I don't think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
| why don't they pass insurance industry reform, i.e. force them to be non profit corporations instead? |
LOL, they should, but at least this partial/public option keeps the insurance industry making money. It's a massive business and Repubs would die before going anywhere near that kind of legislation.
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
| 538 people creates a HUGE pool for low prices. What a joke! |
Well maybe he slipped up, the massive pool is federal employees.
Fox, surely making insurance compulsory for cars is fair. It's a machine that has the potential to cause huge amounts of damage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Let me be clear � it would only be an option for those who don�t have insurance. |
| Quote: |
| It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better |
Anyone else seeing this glaring contradiction? If it's only an option for the uninsured, how would it put pressure on private insurers?
| Quote: |
| the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. |
And man what a useless and irrelevant analogy this is.
===
I can't wait to get home to a computer with speakers so I can hear the whole thing (especially the jackass yelling at the president). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox, surely making insurance compulsory for cars is fair. It's a machine that has the potential to cause huge amounts of damage. |
It's fair if you provide a non-profit governmental option. It's not fair if you demand they do business with for-profit enterprises. If you're going to mandate anything, ever, it needs at the very least a non-profit public option. People's protection being mandated is one thing; insurance industry profits being mandated is something else entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox, surely making insurance compulsory for cars is fair. It's a machine that has the potential to cause huge amounts of damage. |
It's fair if you provide a non-profit governmental option. It's not fair if you demand they do business with for-profit enterprises. If you're going to mandate anything, ever, it needs at the very least a non-profit public option. People's protection being mandated is one thing; insurance industry profits being mandated is something else entirely. |
I don't need a car. When am I going to refuse treatment for my physical/mental ailments? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why don't the Democrats focus on the whole problem by handling immigration reform, insurance reform, and every thing else that contributes to this problem. Do that, THEN look at health care and work on it. |
Ah youth, do it all at once. 
Immigration reform is on the docket for next year...just before the mid-terms.  I'm hoping for a re-play of last time as far as opposition goes. It will be especially interesting to hear Rep. Wilson of South Carolina's shout-outs on that one. The GOP can count on single digit support from non-whites for 50 years.
| Quote: |
| When am I going to refuse treatment for my .......mental ailments? |
Again?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox, surely making insurance compulsory for cars is fair. It's a machine that has the potential to cause huge amounts of damage. |
It's fair if you provide a non-profit governmental option. It's not fair if you demand they do business with for-profit enterprises. If you're going to mandate anything, ever, it needs at the very least a non-profit public option. People's protection being mandated is one thing; insurance industry profits being mandated is something else entirely. |
I don't need a car. When am I going to refuse treatment for my physical/mental ailments? |
Well, first of all, I'd like to point out that in the case of many services doctors provide, it would actually be substantially more inconvenient for you to live without a car than to live without those services. Sure, some of what doctors do is life saving, but a lot of it is pure quality of life. That's more or less tangental to my point, however.
I see no reason to mandate car drivers give money to for-profit businesses. If every driver having insurance is so important that it's worth mandating -- and it needs to be very important to be worth mandating -- then it's important enough to be provided by the government. Legally mandating you engage in financial transactions with the government is one thing; legally mandating you engage in financial transactions with a private business is something else entirely. Car insurance mandates are a pure industry handout; most people lose money on car insurance, not gain.
If you feel the other drivers on the road are a danger to you, I see no reason why you can't insure yourself and be done with it. Government mandates are best left for things that are truly important, and it should never be mandated you do business with a for-profit enterprise without a non-profit alternative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox, surely making insurance compulsory for cars is fair. It's a machine that has the potential to cause huge amounts of damage. |
It's fair if you provide a non-profit governmental option. It's not fair if you demand they do business with for-profit enterprises. If you're going to mandate anything, ever, it needs at the very least a non-profit public option. People's protection being mandated is one thing; insurance industry profits being mandated is something else entirely. |
I don't need a car. When am I going to refuse treatment for my physical/mental ailments? |
Well, first of all, I'd like to point out that in the case of many services doctors provide, it would actually be substantially more inconvenient for you to live without a car than to live without those services. Sure, some of what doctors do is life saving, but a lot of it is pure quality of life. That's more or less tangental to my point, however.
I see no reason to mandate car drivers give money to for-profit businesses. If every driver having insurance is so important that it's worth mandating -- and it needs to be very important to be worth mandating -- then it's important enough to be provided by the government. Legally mandating you engage in financial transactions with the government is one thing; legally mandating you engage in financial transactions with a private business is something else entirely. Car insurance mandates are a pure industry handout; most people lose money on car insurance, not gain.
If you feel the other drivers on the road are a danger to you, I see no reason why you can't insure yourself and be done with it. Government mandates are best left for things that are truly important, and it should never be mandated you do business with a for-profit enterprise without a non-profit alternative. |
There actually is at least one non-profit car insurance enterprise. It is called USAA. However, it is only for people who have served in the military as well as their children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox, surely making insurance compulsory for cars is fair. It's a machine that has the potential to cause huge amounts of damage. |
It's fair if you provide a non-profit governmental option. It's not fair if you demand they do business with for-profit enterprises. If you're going to mandate anything, ever, it needs at the very least a non-profit public option. People's protection being mandated is one thing; insurance industry profits being mandated is something else entirely. |
I don't need a car. When am I going to refuse treatment for my physical/mental ailments? |
Well, first of all, I'd like to point out that in the case of many services doctors provide, it would actually be substantially more inconvenient for you to live without a car than to live without those services. Sure, some of what doctors do is life saving, but a lot of it is pure quality of life. That's more or less tangental to my point, however.
I see no reason to mandate car drivers give money to for-profit businesses. If every driver having insurance is so important that it's worth mandating -- and it needs to be very important to be worth mandating -- then it's important enough to be provided by the government. Legally mandating you engage in financial transactions with the government is one thing; legally mandating you engage in financial transactions with a private business is something else entirely. Car insurance mandates are a pure industry handout; most people lose money on car insurance, not gain.
If you feel the other drivers on the road are a danger to you, I see no reason why you can't insure yourself and be done with it. Government mandates are best left for things that are truly important, and it should never be mandated you do business with a for-profit enterprise without a non-profit alternative. |
There actually is at least one non-profit car insurance enterprise. It is called USAA. However, it is only for people who have served in the military as well as their children. |
Don't people who have served in the military also have a non-profit government health program? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Car insurance mandates are a pure industry handout; most people lose money on car insurance, not gain.
|
This is the old capitalist scam: socialize costs but privatize profits. It works the same in the health industry under the current system.
I paid into Blue Cross-Blue Shield for 20 years and didn't get a dime of it back. If/When I go back, I'm SOL. No insurance and I'm too old for any private company to want me. The gov't option thingie needs to be open for lots more than 5% of the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
