1st Term Obama Approval

[jericho]

How should the government step out? Less regulation, so insurance companies don't have to cover cancer? You forget that the government *was* for the most part out of it until just a few years ago. The government stepped in because we have the most expensive and least effective system in the developed world.

I don't want for my country to keep beating its head against the wall. We have established pretty conclusively that the private system does not work. It is time to start looking at places where health care works. Like Germany. Do some research on their system-it is a public/private hybrid and very cheap, very effective.

The government was hardly out of healthcare before Obamacare. Obamacare took it to the next level.

[debrand]

I've answered plenty on this. People keep putting words in my mouth about things I don't believe like you just did. I've never said I want people to die in ditches or go without food or a place to live or health care. The government can't help everyone. We are in serious debt as a nation because they keep trying to though. And at the same time congress refuses to make any cuts and live within their means.

What part do you believe long wars and deregulation of business led to our current financial problems?

[formergothardite]

I am just going to agree with Debrand. LOL She said it better. Nobody is saying that the government is perfect, but Jericho, you have never been able to point to history and show where when the government quit supporting the poor, that private charities did as good of a job as they do no. History proves you wrong.

Plus even if the government demands that you give your money to them to support the poor, Jesus said you were to give it and not ask for it back.

[emmiedahl]

The government was hardly out of healthcare before Obamacare. Obamacare took it to the next level.

Can you tell me how the government was making health care more expensive before Obama? Be specific.

[Visionoyahweh]

The government was hardly out of healthcare before Obamacare.

Only because private insurers WOULD NOT insure people who were high risk. That leaves out mainly old people and the very young (micropreemies), two groups who would be dying off in droves in your Jesus/Rand utopia.

If private insures were to take on higher risk people then we wouldn't need government to be involved in healthcare at all. They won't, so that's why we need evil Obamacare to twist their arms.

[jericho]

Isn't it funny how countries with the most socialist form of healthcare have the highest standards of living?

According to Wikipedia: "Country A, a perfectly socialist country with a planned economy with very low average per capita income would receive a higher score for having lower income inequality than Country B with a higher income inequality, even if the bottom of Country B's population distribution had a higher per capita income than Country A. Real examples of this include former East Germany compared to former West Germany or North Korea compared to South Korea. In each case, the socialist country has a low income discrepancy (and therefore would score high in that regard), but lower per capita incomes than a large majority of their neighboring counterpart."

So its all about the way the score the standard of living. Socialist countries have lower per capita income. There is less success in Socialism.

[ChickeyMonkey]

It doesn't take very long to fuck something up royally, but to fix it, it can take a long time.

The country doesn't press a restart button when a new prez comes into office. He (when will we have a she?) has to deal with all the crap the outgoing president left for him to clean up. Add to that the Republican party who are more interested in keeping the Democrats/Obama from making any kind of progress than actually doing their jobs, well, you don't get much done, do you?

It's a team effort and they forget that it's not supposed to be "us vs. them" in our government. They're supposed to work together for the good of the country. Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you want to look at it), not everyone's idea of good is the same.

[emmiedahl]

According to Wikipedia: "Country A, a perfectly socialist country with a planned economy with very low average per capita income would receive a higher score for having lower income inequality than Country B with a higher income inequality, even if the bottom of Country B's population distribution had a higher per capita income than Country A. Real examples of this include former East Germany compared to former West Germany or North Korea compared to South Korea. In each case, the socialist country has a low income discrepancy (and therefore would score high in that regard), but lower per capita incomes than a large majority of their neighboring counterpart."

So its all about the way the score the standard of living. Socialist countries have lower per capita income. There is less success in Socialism.

That's because the incomes are not skewed upward by people like the Koch family, who in any other developed country would not be allowed to sacrifice lives for profit. There are fewer billionaires in socialist countries, but the everyday lives are better. Which completely is what that social inequality measure looks at.

btw, East Germany and North Korea are COMMUNIST, not socialist. Difference, you can haz perception.

[formergothardite]

No matter what Jericho's opinions are, Jesus was still clear that if someone (the government in this case) demands his money, he should give it and not even think about asking for it back.

Jericho doesn't seem to be having that attitude.

[Boogalou]

According to Wikipedia: "Country A, a perfectly socialist country with a planned economy with very low average per capita income would receive a higher score for having lower income inequality than Country B with a higher income inequality, even if the bottom of Country B's population distribution had a higher per capita income than Country A. Real examples of this include former East Germany compared to former West Germany or North Korea compared to South Korea. In each case, the socialist country has a low income discrepancy (and therefore would score high in that regard), but lower per capita incomes than a large majority of their neighboring counterpart."

So its all about the way the score the standard of living. Socialist countries have lower per capita income. There is less success in Socialism.

This article needs additional citations for verification.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Or so says Wikipedia.

[Visionoyahweh]

East Germany and North Korea = Communist, nice job conflating that with socialism, which can exist in democracies, too.

INB4: But, it's Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, and the National SOCIALIST Party! What a movement calls itself has little to do with it's actual political classification.

[emmiedahl]

Have you noticed that Jericho always chooses the worst sources? Thinktanks run by billionaires as lobbying machines, disputed wikipedia articles. Jericho, is there any legitimate backing of your ideas? Have you ever wondered why you cannot use history and current events to back up arguments the way liberals can?

[jericho]

Can you tell me how the government was making health care more expensive before Obama? Be specific.

-Not allowing Americans to shop for health insurance across state lines, forcing insurers to compete.

-Unneeded and unnecessary regulations that keep life-saving drugs and treatments off the market. Such regulations are often supported by health care lobbyists and are intended to freeze out competing products and companies.

-Health insurance mandates that force Americans to pay for treatments they won't ever use.

Also, from a previous discussion, unalienable rights are found in the constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[jericho]

Have you noticed that Jericho always chooses the worst sources? Thinktanks run by billionaires as lobbying machines, disputed wikipedia articles. Jericho, is there any legitimate backing of your ideas? Have you ever wondered why you cannot use history and current events to back up arguments the way liberals can?

I guess I should use your liberal sources?

[emmiedahl]

-Not allowing Americans to shop for health insurance across state lines, forcing insurers to compete.

Most of the companies are indeed national companies, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The fact that they charge too much is not caused by a lack of competition, but their own greed. I believe Obamacare addressed this, btw, or at least tried to.

-Unneeded and unnecessary regulations that keep life-saving drugs and treatments off the market. Such regulations are often supported by health care lobbyists and are intended to freeze out competing products and companies.

I assure you that the health lobbyists want less regulation. The biggest lobbyists are pharmaceutical companies who would LOVE to put out medications with less testing. But this is not safe. Do you really want medications to be less tested and less safe? Is that a good thing?

-Health insurance mandates that force Americans to pay for treatments they won't ever use.

What? I don't even know what you are talking about? Are you talking about Obamacare? We're discussing pre-Obamacare, remember?

The Fourteenth Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Again, what does this have to do with government regulation pre-Obama?

Jericho, here is an example of why health care is so expensive in the US:

I am uninsured because I can't afford insurance. I could not afford insurance even without regulations that drive prices up according to conservatives. I have no extra money, none. Our minimal living expenses exceed our income.

I have a nasty cold right now. When I get a cold, it goes right to my lungs so I am currently, as we call it, "coughing up lung cookies". I probably will be okay, but it would be a good idea to see a doctor. And I can't. See financial situation explained above.

If this turns into pneumonia or something serious, which has happened in the past, I will have to go to an emergency room. It will cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars. And I won't be able to pay it, I am already five figures in the hole with medical debt. I mean, I'll try, but the chance of the hospital seeing the money anytime soon is really low.

The taxpayers will be paying it, because that service is not free. If I had socialized health care, they would be paying for an office visit to treat the infection before it get bad. So you potentially save hundreds every time a poor person gets a government-funded office visit.

My husband currently is doing clinical training at a local hospital as part of his degree program. About half of the patients he interacts with have no insurance. Some can pay, but probably a lot cannot. This is in radiology, so we are talking about tests that cost hundreds/thousands of dollars. Someone IS paying for it. They are just paying a lot more than they need to.

Our choice is to: close emergency rooms to non-insured people who cannot pay up front, leaving people to die in the streets, or to simply fund health care nationally and cover more people with less money. The morally right option is also the cheaper one in this case. It's not a hard decision.

[emmiedahl]

I guess I should use your liberal sources?

Do you really consider history a liberal source?

[happy atheist]

If private charity is so damned good at taking care of people, then why is anybody in the United States living in poverty right now?

[Visionoyahweh]

Also, from a previous discussion, unalienable rights are found in the constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The amendment itself states that the government can most certainly take away your inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, assuming there's a trial first. Are you anti-death penalty too?

Property is mentioned in the the Constitution, but no the Declaration of Independence, so does it count? Do we have an inalienable right to property? Shouldn't that inalienable right demand we give the poor people our shit?

[EmmieJ]

The government was hardly out of healthcare before Obamacare. Obamacare took it to the next level.

I am a person who now has what you call "Obamacare." In 2008, I had to drop my health coverage because I could no longer afford the monthly premium. I worked then (and still do) for a small employer, and am the only employee of the business. My boss was willing to pay $200 toward my monthly health premium. However, my premium, plus that for my son, totalled nearly $700 per month. I couldn't afford to spend $500/month on health insurance. So I dropped coverage and was uninsured from 2008 until late 2011. I'm lucky in that I'm basically healthy - found a great doctor and health care clinic to meet my needs. Continue to pay a monthly premium so my son has coverage (well, my employer paid that).

With the passage of the health care reform act, I was able to apply via my State for pre-existing condition coverage. That's what you're calling Obamacare. It's a health plan that cannot turn you down despite any pre-existing health conditions, nor can exclude coverage for those conditions. It's also affordable, when compared to going out and seeking health coverage through any other provider (Kaiser, Blue Cross, etc.). My monthly premium started out at $364/month. I have a $25 co-pay for doctor visits. Dental coverage is not included, but vision care is. Unfortunately, only a few providers are included in this plan, so I still pay full price for my own doctor visits. But, and this is a huge deal to me, if I am hospitalized or develop a serious medical condition, I now have health insurance to help cover my medical expenses.

You can call it whatever you want - it's health coverage for me that I could not get before, at a price I can afford. No government employee interferes with my medical care, my medical records are not reviewed by any state or federal agency. My medical care is the same as it was before I got this coverage. The big difference is that I now have a safety net should something bad happen to me (healthwise).

I would urge you to become more concerned with the invasion of privacy that the TSA poses, rather than fussing over the fact that our government finally did something right and made health coverage available to people who otherwise would be turned down, or priced completely out of the market.

BTW, I recently did a price check for getting insurance on the open market at my current age - 50. Setting aside that all insurers would turn me away because I have high BP, the cheapest plan I could find started at nearly $650/month, just for me.

[Austin]

Do you really consider history a liberal source?

These folks crack me up. I once had an online discussion with a right-winger who kept citing the Eagle Forum in very serious fashion, but would have had a fit if I had cited Mother Jones. Like Phyllis Schafly is a journalist :roll:

Sources do matter. I can cite from HuffPo in discussions with my progressive friends, but when debating a right-winger, I would use the most mainstream/historical source available.

Also, Obamacare. . . Affordable Care Act or ACA.

[Artemis]

I've answered plenty on this. People keep putting words in my mouth about things I don't believe like you just did. I've never said I want people to die in ditches or go without food or a place to live or health care. The government can't help everyone. We are in serious debt as a nation because they keep trying to though. And at the same time congress refuses to make any cuts and live within their means.

No one needs to put any words into your mouth, Jericho. 'By their fruits shall ye know them' Historically when there was no health care people died in ditches and went without food, and places to live, and health care. This was because in many cases they were considered to be the 'undeserving poor' - the unmarried mothers, the addicts, the weak, the sexually non-compliant-with accepted-mores. (That's mor-es, BTW: customs or accepted ways of behaving.) The people the church rejected because of their interpretation of Christ's message which, if I remember correctly ran along the lines of:

"Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink? 38When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you? 39Or when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came to you? 40And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.

41Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungered, and you gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and you visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to you? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

Is it so hard for you to understand that Christ did NOT put conditions on care? Or that we don't want care from your 'Christian' private charities precisely because we can't rely on it to be Christlike in its inclusivity, compassion and universality?

Oh and how many times does one have to say it? WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE. IT'S WIKIPEDIA ffs!

[debrand]

EmmieJ, I am going to ask an ignorant question. How do you sign up for the insurance you use? I have a dear friend who hasn't had an annual exam in years because of the cost. To get insurance through her husband's company would cost seven hundred dollars a month. They simply don't have the money. I'd love to be able to help her get medical care.

[formergothardite]

History prove Jericho wrong every single time. St

And it really doesn't matter how you feel Jericho, because Jesus didn't say "And when anyone demadeth your money, giveth them with a bitter angry spirit and then goeth and bitcheth about it on the internet. Especially is said money is going to supporteth the poor."

No, he just said that if anyone (in this case the American government) demands your money, you give it and do not ask for it back. Where is your Christ like attitude Jericho?

[emmiedahl]

I have a feeling Jericho is not of the social class that would be taxed anyway.

Jericho, why aren't you a billionaire? For all of our ideological differences, you sound hard-working and intelligent. Shouldn't you have made your first few mil by now if the hardworking and intelligent are the ones who get ahead?

I want you to consider: if you are a typical American, if your kid got leukemia, you'd be screwed. Unable to work while handling treatments in other cities, and that's only if you could afford them. That shit can happen to anyone, and it is devastating. You shouldn't have to think about finances while you are fighting to save your baby's life. Jericho, I think your kid deserves the best care, no matter what you earn. Not just your kid and my kids, but all kids. Your kid is one of those we are fighting for.

[debrand]

I have a feeling Jericho is not of the social class that would be taxed anyway.

Jericho, why aren't you a billionaire? For all of our ideological differences, you sound hard-working and intelligent. Shouldn't you have made your first few mil by now if the hardworking and intelligent are the ones who get ahead?

I want you to consider: if you are a typical American, if your kid got leukemia, you'd be screwed. Unable to work while handling treatments in other cities, and that's only if you could afford them. That shit can happen to anyone, and it is devastating. You shouldn't have to think about finances while you are fighting to save your baby's life. Jericho, I think your kid deserves the best care, no matter what you earn. Not just your kid and my kids, but all kids. Your kid is one of those we are fighting for.

Jericho is probably like a lot of right wingers I meet. They aren't wealthy. Although they work hard, they still have a hard time affording health insurance and making ends meet. Most don't realize that they've fallen for propaganda that hurts them.

I'd ask Jericho to look at the obvious. Who profits by screaming about class warfare and not taking from the rich? I will tell you who, the very wealthy and politicians.

No one on the left is calling for the wealthy to give up all their funds. However, because they have more resources, the rich should be taxed at a higher rate than they are now. That isn't stealing from them.