Oh, no, no. They are not liberals. Perish the thought.

[red-beard]

From that great conservative bastion, CNN:

Obama calls for universal health care within six years

Clinton renews call for universal health care

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/25/democrats.healthcare.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race.

"The time has come for universal health care in America," Obama said at a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.

"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," the Illinois senator said.

Obama was previewing what is shaping up to be a theme of the 2008 Democratic primary. His chief rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, also are strong proponents of universal health care and have promised to offer their plans.

Obama said while plans are offered in every campaign season with "much fanfare and promise," they collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving citizens to struggle with the skyrocketing costs.

He said it's wrong that 46 million in this country are uninsured when the country spends more than any one else on health care. He said Americans pay $15 billion in taxes to help care for the uninsured.

"We can't afford another disappointing charade in 2008, 2009 and 2010," Obama said. "It's not only tiresome, it's wrong."

Obama's call was an echo of a speech he made last April when he said Democrats "need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

His argument Thursday not only will be considered through the prism of the presidential campaign, but weighed against rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's ill-fated plan to overhaul the health care insurance system when she was first lady.

Clinton renews call for universal health care
Even after leading that calamitous attempt in 1993, Clinton remains in favor of universal health care and has made it a central theme of her presidential bid.

"One of the goals that I will be presenting ... is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American," she said at a community health clinic in New York Sunday, the day after entering the 2008 Democratic field. "That's a very major part of my campaign and I want to hear people's ideas about how we can achieve that goal."

On Thursday, she criticized Bush's proposal to make health care more affordable through tax breaks, arguing that it would lead to less funding for hospitals.

Addressing the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Clinton was self-deprecating in describing her own experience in the health care debate and joked that Bush would need some heavy-duty protection as he wades into the fight.

"I welcome his participation in the health care debate. I'm going to send him a suit of armor because I know anybody who puts a foot in the health care debate is gonna need that. I've got the scars and experience to show for it," said the New York senator.

Another candidate, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, also backs universal health care.

[Jim Richards]

Doesn't Governator? And for illegal aliens, to boot? And doesn't B2 want to tax employers that provide good health insurance plans to their employess, so that the federal gov't can redistribute the money to provide health ins. vouchers to those without? I guess that way, employers will just reduce their benefits to avoid the tax. Then, the whole system will be broken. Well, except for corporate execs and the independently wealthy. I love it when a plan comes together.

So, I say, it's FUBAR, no matter who's involved.

[Dan in Pasadena]

You say "liberal" like its a pejorative. It isn't.

[cool_chick]

I'm surprised Bush and the republicans aren't jumping on this wagon.....with medicare prescription and all.....

LOL

Were you calling them "liberals" when that lovely bill went through?

[john70t]

Why not? There are plenty of government subsidies out there.

So far, I'm forced to:
-Subsidise $300mil++ to a failed buisness (local auto company) through state taxes.
-Pay X to the nth power to the V.P.s former company through "general-fund" federal taxes.
-Pay over $120/month to subsidize plastic bumpers and repeat road-ragers through insurance rates (which barely covers injury protection and not even the vehicle).
-and the list goes on...

Is it easier to collect before hand, isolate those funds, and use them properly......or not?
At this point, though, the dems are just as likely to misuse extra funds as the repubs.[edit:there's been a prerequesit set]

[bivenator]

He said it's wrong that 46 million in this country are uninsured when the country spends more than any one else on health care. He said Americans pay $15 billion in taxes to help care for the uninsured.

It would seem that those beating the drum for the uninsured would have you believe that they recieve no health care, however the statement is false as noted by the 15 billion price tag on health care for the uninsured.
Now I not gonna argue that the health care system doesn't need some work, but the uninsured do have options. They are not of the same quality as those who are insured but there are options.
Should those folks who don't have as much cash recieve the same level of care as those that do?

[hardflex]

If Universal Health Care is a benchmark for Liberals, who said this and what is he?

"Our second goal is high quality, affordable health care for all Americans."

hint, it was in the State of the Union Speech....

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by hardflex
If Universal Health Care is a benchmark for Liberals, who said this and what is he?

"Our second goal is high quality, affordable health care for all Americans."

hint, it was in the State of the Union Speech....

Afforable does not equal Federally funded. In fact they are near opposites.

[Jim Richards]

Isn't B2's plan to tax businesses and redistribute the funds to those without coverage, so they can purchase it? I'm not criticizing (yet), but trying to come up to speed on what B2's plan is.

[RoninLB]

either you believe the open market and consumer choice can provide better results or you believe gov't mandates and socialism can?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Isn't B2's plan to tax businesses and redistribute the funds to those without coverage, so they can purchase it? I'm not criticizing (yet), but trying to come up to speed on what B2's plan is.

The way I understand it, Bush is trying to convert the system to a more competative free market system where employees shop for and buy their own policies.

If you receive HC benefits paid by your employer, you will pay income tax on the value above $15k a year. But if your employer pays you increased wages and you buy your own insurance, then you can write off the entire amount.

[hardflex]

Anybody kept track of how well the Insurance companies helped the clean up after Katrina? How they paid off market values for the homes they had insured. LOL


I don't trust Insurance companies AT ALL, Their bottom line is dependent on figuring a way of NOT paying me, so I don't think I want to leave my health care choices up to them.

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by lendaddy
The way I understand it, Bush is trying to convert the system to a more competative free market system where employees shop for and buy their own policies.

If you receive HC benefits paid by your employer, you will pay income tax on the value above $15k a year. But if your employer pays you increased wages and you buy your own insurance, then you can write off the entire amount.

I see. My only concern is that, as I get older, health care needs will increase and health care plans provided through work have been continually eroding over the last 20+ years.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by RoninLB
either you believe the open market and consumer choice can provide better results or you believe gov't mandates and socialism can?

Can we all just agree to drop the charade the US has free-market economy.? There are LOTS of things that are subsidized, tax-breaked, tariffed, protected, and some goods and services are just flat outlawed.

What we have is a free-market-ish economy with governments to encourage behavior that's healthy to the State as a whole, and to place checks on the market when it's not serving public interest.

Clearly, the millions of uninsured are not be served by the market. Those people still get medical care, but instead of going to doctors' offices, they're getting it at emergency rooms at 10x the cost. Hospitals and grants pay for the uninsured to get this expensive care, so we're paying for it anyway. Why not formalize it? It might even be cheaper than what we have now.

[stomachmonkey]

I pay my own health care for a family of four. I could buy another house with the premium.

More options would be just fine with me.

[sammyg2]

Dan, I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion the label of liberal is an insult. Something one should be ashamed of.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Want to REALLY fix the health care problem? Two words: Tort Reform.

Of course all the lawmaker ex-lawyers will never do it.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by wludavid


What we have is a free-market-ish economy with governments to encourage behavior that's healthy to the State as a whole, and to place checks on the market when it's not serving public interest.

Healthy to the state as a whole? Chuckle.

Free-market-ish is right. But not based on any sound ecomomic principals.

Want an energy policy? Sorry ADM and Wall Street are looking for tax breaks on phony baloney ethanol and wind farm projects.

Want tort reform? Sorry - the lawyers lobby just shot you down.

Education? As long as the teachers union calls the shots and gets their more than fair share.

Power and money and perks flow the Interests with the best lawyers and lobbyists. The "public good" has NOTHING to do with it.

[Superman]

Yeah, that's a pretty bad idea. Health care for everyone. Silly. Think about it:

* Health care is something you should have to BUY.
* If you cannot afford it, then you can't get it.
* People with money can have good health, whereas people without sufficient money cannot.
* Let's also close those emergency rooms to people who don't have either health insurance, or a few thousand dollars in cash.

Because Americans are not entitled to good health.....unless they earn enough money.

Good idea. Does anyone foresee any problems with this idea?

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, I might shock some of you here, but I actually am in favor of some sort of nationwide health care system. Now, before you throw me off of the conservative bus, let me explain.

First, we are ALREADY paying for healthcare. It comes through government grants to hospitals and through Medicare/Medicaid, not to mention increased charges to paying patients by clinics and hospitals to make up for those who cannot pay. The problem is that people are using the ER as a primary care clinic. A ER visit for medication refills and a physical may cost medicaid $250. The same visit in a clinic might be $50. Not only that, but these people do not go to the doctor routinely, so hypertension that might have been easily controlled in a clinic setting 2 years ago is now out of control and requires hospitalization.

Therefore, it seems to me that a basic nationwide system would actually end up saving us money, or at least be cost neutral. Of course, that depends on what the system ends up looking like.

I have said in earlier threads that there already is a free or nearly free healthcare system available to most if not all Americans. It is the county system. I think that we should increase funding for the county system and make it more available to the public. If you need more capability, then augment the system that is already there.

Now then, one thing that I think will be a sticking point. Obviously the US is not going to a completely socialized system a la Canada. The middle class through upper class will not stand for it. If you can pay for your healthcare, you have every right to get your care faster than someone who cannot pay. Healthcare is not a right, it is a commodity. The US public has to understand the problems with a socialized system. Wait times are common. You might not get your MRI next week, it might be 6 weeks from now. Your bypass surgery might be 4 months from now. These are things that I saw regularly in the county system. It's a fact of life...when you have limited resources then wait times increase.

I personally have no problem with a basic national system which you can then lay your private insurance on top of. I don't have a problem with the idea that someone who has private insurance will get admitted to a nicer hospital with possibly better physicians (due to increased pay) and will get their operation faster than someone who is in the national system with no private insurance.

My fear is that the Dems will want to make everyone equal in their access to care and thus pull everyone down to the lowest level of access. THat plan will never pass, the public won't stand for it.

If the Dems (and Reps for that matter) are smart, they will implement a tiered system which really addresses the issues.