Obama Lashes Out at Health Insurers

President Barack Obama pushed back against critics of his health care plan on Saturday with a stern warning that absent reform, costs will continue to rise and eventually devastate the U.S. economy. (Oct. 17)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• obama
• health_care
• lashes
• health
• insurers

[1911arthur]

We DEMAND a Public Option to stop the deaths.

We DEMAND CEO's be prosecuted for running a racket and crimes against humanity.

[poohbudpita]

All I know is that our premiums have more than doubled since we got our policy in '02. What the heck, I suppose that's OK, especially since the CEO's of the insurance companies need to make millions a year. I get that. Those guys need it more than we do.

I told my friend that he needed to get over his inability to get insurance because of a "pre-existing condition". He's just a whiner anyway.

I also think it's great that a fraction each premium dollar we spend goes to actual health care.

[raventakayama]

@markgg1 Yeah man don't bother with dave. I hit him with a condescending message because I figured he didn't have a legitimate reason for disliking healthcare reform, he's just repeating what he's told. There's no critical thought process in people like that so there's no need in debating. You'll never get him to think about it.

[markgg1]

@raventakayama Finally some reason in this debate. America is spending 16% of their money on health! 1/6 of all of your money goes on a service the rest of can pay for with 1/10th of the money, and get a FREE better service.

People are so blinded by ideology that they shoot themselves in the foot. People's lives are literally being lost for this sort of thinking. I cant bear to imagine what it would be like to get Cancer and know you are uninsured. Its not just bad for individual & society

[markgg1]

@davedavedaveannoy1 South Africa spend 8% of GDP on health (like the UK) but in real terms this is 1/4 our expenditure, as their GDP per head is 1/4 ours. They have a AIDs crisis, and actually have a massive private sector in health for the middle and upper classes. I dont think you can make that comparison.

Imagine a system where a proportion of your tax (less then you pay for insurance) left your pay check. In return you knew if you or family got sick, they just walked into a clinic for free?

[markgg1]

@davedavedaveannoy1 Im not an ideological person, I am just pragmatic. What works should be used. I have already proven that public systems are cheaper & better. This is plain fact. If all you can do is respond that I live in a 'utopian world view' then you have no argument.

On for example, clothes shops, they should be private as a public system would be rubbish. I am no communist. In Europe we know a mixed economy is best for everyone. Private and public both have roles in providing services

[markgg1]

@davedavedaveannoy1 But how is it free when we pay via tax? The NHS is not a charity, but we all pay what we can afford, i.e. a percentage of our earnings in the form of taxes. The admi is cheaper then the US (so more efficient) delivers a better product, as we are healthier, and the best part is when you get sick you just turn up at the hospital and get sorted. It focuses on preventing serious disease before they happen, as this approach is cheaper.

[davedavedaveannoy1]

@markgg1 Tisk Tisk, you people have so much potential but you remain clouded by thoughts of morality and of utopia. The UK is in debt and only kept afloat by their European neighbors. In fact, their healthcare system is so bad that they are considering dropping it. Universal healthcare is nice if you want to help the fellow man, but to support 300 million individuals for free is not profitable nor is it economically wise, its just conformity poured into a government trough.

[davedavedaveannoy1]

@davedavedaveannoy1 Check the South African system then check back with me

[markgg1]

@davedavedaveannoy1 US insures 80% of population, UK 100%. We also live three years longer, and that is taking into account lifestyle because the UK is the fattest most alcoholic nation in the EU.

I wont go into the moral angle of having people who lack protection, but mainly want to stick to economically because public systems win hands down on this issue. If you disagree, please point me to a private system which does better then a public one. You wont find one.

[markgg1]

@davedavedaveannoy1 A doctor who works better, and has better ideas in a nationalised system will get promoted quicker, and will therefore earn more money and have prestige. Your argument applies for both private and public.

What I find from your side is this: you guys make very plausible ideological arguments against public health, but do not have evidence to support it. The US has the most expensive health system, and worse outcome. This is enough evidence to show how poor the system is.

[markgg1]

@davedavedaveannoy1 Hey, its not a waste of time to have these arguments because poeple like me read them. I want to respond because I have simple facts that I think show private systems to be the wrong way to go

USA vs UK

USA spends 16% of GDP on health (8% from governmment, 8% from individuals)

UK spends 8% GDP on health (8% government, 0% from individuals)

USA spends more on administration then UK.

Democratically controlled healthcare is better, and cheaper. I can explain why if you like?