Obama admits in a video he wishes to create a universal health care system in America and eliminate private health insurance. All the reassuring speeches about people being able to keep their own insurance and not competing with private insurers is untrue (as his critics have been saying all along).
Did he change his mind since then or just covering up his true intentions?
Obama: “As I indicated before, I think that we’re going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to — I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we’ve got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we’ve got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.”
From a different speech: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.” (such as Canada)
The White House is now in full spin mode and trying to distract people from this video that obviously shows Obama admitting his desire to eventually see a government-run monopoly on health care. The communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform has put out a counter video featuring Linda Douglass, formerly of ABC news, attacking the critics of “cobbling” together pieces to create a “false impression.” But opponents have just presented Obama’s own words, in their context, for all to hear and read. Moreover, it shows yet another example of the deception by this president and his administration.
Powered by FireStats
“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process.”
So companies will no longer have to provide employees health care because the government does so… and that is sinister because… the auto industry will finally be competitive?
“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.” (such as Canada)”
I’m pretty sure they still have the private option in Canada.
You miss the point – Obama lied either then or now, probably both. Government-run care will not be an improvement. You are saying the auto industry isn’t competitive because they provide health benefits? Most, if not all, large companies provide some kind of health care and they seem to be quite competitive. It’s the unions that are the problem. Quebec and other Canadian provinces have outlawed private health insurance until only recently. But I believe I read that private insurance in certain places still are limited in what they are allowed to cover.
“You miss the point – Obama lied either then or now, probably both.”
…
If you don’t believe anything he is saying is his position, why are you commentating on it?
” You are saying the auto industry isn’t competitive because they provide health benefits? ”
It is one of the reasons. If you have to have companies provide health benefits they will not be as competitive as companies that don’t have those costs.
“It’s the unions that are the problem. ”
Where do you think the press for health benefits comes from? That is ignoring wages and pensions, but it is one of the problems
“Most, if not all, large companies provide some kind of health care and they seem to be quite competitive.”
“Quebec and other Canadian provinces have outlawed private health insurance until only recently.”
?
“But I believe I read that private insurance in certain places still are limited in what they are allowed to cover.”
Can you link the relevant part of Canada’s administrative law?
“If you don’t believe anything he is saying is his position, why are you commentating on it?”
Because many people apparently do believe him and they need to understand they are being mislead by his flip flops at best, and outright lies at worse. At first he says he wants to see a universal system with the eventual elimination of private insurance. Then he claims everyone can keep their private insurance if they are happy with it, and the government won’t destroy the competition.
If a nationalized system will be so great, why are they trying to ram it through congress? If there is nothing to hide, then give it time for debate.
“It is one of the reasons. If you have to have companies provide health benefits they will not be as competitive as companies that don’t have those costs.”
Yes, but even if government did cover that cost (which we still pay for), the unions still negatively affect the automakers. Can you link to something showing how Obamacare will make automakers competitive? Regardless, the UAW is closely tied to the Democrats, and will not be going away soon.
“Quebec and other Canadian provinces have outlawed private health insurance until only recently.”
?
This article gives a general overview, which all started when a doctor who opted out of Quebec’s medicare system, but the government prohibited him from providing private medical services in hospitals. And the Quebec Hospital Insurance Act prevented his patients from buying insurance to cover their private medical costs. It went to their Supreme Court.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/400070/canada_taking_small_steps_toward_private_health_care/
“Can you link the relevant part of Canada’s administrative law?”
It can be found in the articles that already examined this topic without trying to navigate the maze of endless government links covering thousands of pages.
This is from the Canadian government’s website: “Moreover, the majority of provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) prohibit private insurance companies from covering services that are also guaranteed under public health-care insurance plans.” So you are stuck with the government system if you have certain medical conditions, and cannot get faster service for more money or out-of-pocket expense.
The entire Canadian system is a huge complicated mess as can be seen in this article which is even sympathetic to the Canadian system. Much of the incentives for private insurance are destroyed or restricted by the government since doctors either have to give up public funds if they take private, or private billing cannot be more than what the public plan would pay, etc. etc. All provinces except 2 specifically prohibit opted-in physicians from billing patients more than they or the patient would receive from the public plan. They describe that in places with less restrictions on the private sector, not much has developed, but don’t explain the disincentives. The article tries to claim it isn’t directly outlawed, but this is more creative deception, because the net effect is the same whether explicitly written or not. I’m sure people are still required to pay the taxes for the public system even if they want to opt out.
“At first he says he wants to see a universal system with the eventual elimination of private insurance. Then he claims everyone can keep their private insurance if they are happy with it, and the government won’t destroy the competition. ”
Company insurance=/ all private insurance.
“If a nationalized system will be so great, why are they trying to ram it through congress? If there is nothing to hide, then give it time for debate. ”
Honestly? Because Obama is incompetant when it comes to political maneuvering.
“which all started when a doctor who opted out of Quebec’s medicare system”
WTF? Canada uses single payer- how can you “opt out”?
“The entire Canadian system is a huge complicated mess ”
Which consistently performs better than the US with a higher LE, lower IM and lower cost.
“Much of the incentives for private insurance are destroyed ”
“private billing cannot be more than what the public plan would pay”
Canada- destorying private health care by under cutting prices. I approve.
“I’m sure people are still required to pay the taxes for the public system even if they want to opt out.”
Of course- they are still covered by the public option. The private alternative only will cover things the public option doesn’t.
“Company insurance=/ all private insurance.”
But that’s not a defense. He still wants the only ‘choice’ to eventually be a public plan. That’s not a choice.
“Honestly? Because Obama is incompetant when it comes to political maneuvering.”
I’m not so sure. They must know that a government takeover will be disastrous. Why else would they put an exemption in the bill for members of Congress? They always get to opt out of everything they want to force on the rest of us. Much like most politicians send their children to private schools rather than public. Again, if the public system they created is so great, why do they constantly decline to participate?
“WTF? Canada uses single payer- how can you “opt out”?”
It is overall, but this case was specific to Quebec. Remember, provinces still have some variation between them.
“Which consistently performs better than the US with a higher LE, lower IM and lower cost.”
As already explained elsewhere, LE and IM are not accurate predictors of medical care.
Sure, you can control costs by restricting available drugs and surgeries, and allowing people to suffer on waiting lists. Either pay more and suffer less, or pay less and suffer more. Although I have a feeling that the politicians, whether in Canada or here, would never have to wait on any list if they needed some kind of medical procedure. But as for the serfs….
“Of course- they are still covered by the public option. The private alternative only will cover things the public option doesn’t.”
But what if you are not satisfied with the service of the public option, and want to completely leave it for faster service in a private setting. Shouldn’t people be allowed to completely remove themselves from the public plan, along with their money? I would hope so. Just as any bad business shouldn’t be rewarded with money and patronage.
“But that’s not a defense. He still wants the only ‘choice’ to eventually be a public plan. That’s not a choice.”
You get to choose what plan your company uses?
“They must know that a government takeover will be disastrous. Why else would they put an exemption in the bill for members of Congress? ”
Congress already has government health care.
“Remember, provinces still have some variation between them.”
I’d put in a joke about how your complaint about the Canadian system contradicts your opposition to a strong federal government, but honestly I can’t make it funny. If various states can alter the plan to suit themselves better, isn’t that something you would support?
“As already explained elsewhere, LE and IM are not accurate predictors of medical care.”
They show results. That is all that is important.
“Sure, you can control costs by restricting available drugs and surgeries, and allowing people to suffer on waiting lists. Either pay more and suffer less, or pay less and suffer more. ”
The health care industry has something called “profits”. Government agencies don’t need to make this and in this case have no incentive to.
“Although I have a feeling that the politicians, whether in Canada or here, would never have to wait on any list if they needed some kind of medical procedure. But as for the serfs….”
Politicians do in Canada. It is by need, not patronage. You are thinking of the USSR.
” and want to completely leave it for faster service in a private setting. ”
Than they pay for the priviledge, just like now.
“Shouldn’t people be allowed to completely remove themselves from the public plan, along with their money?”
If you don’t own a car, why should you pay for roads? If you don’t have children, why should you pay for schools?
“You get to choose what plan your company uses?”
Actually yes. You can choose between various PPO plans with different deductibles and coverage, or the HMO. Or you can choose to cover yourself with a private plan and get an allowance to help pay for it.
“Congress already has government health care.”
It’s not the same as the one they want to force on the rest of us.
“I’d put in a joke about how your complaint about the Canadian system contradicts your opposition to a strong federal government, but honestly I can’t make it funny. If various states can alter the plan to suit themselves better, isn’t that something you would support?”
There’s no contradiction. I don’t think it’s the federal government’s job – not not mention it has no authority - to be involved with it to begin with. Yes, the markets are not perfect, but it’s less imperfect than the government.
“They show results. That is all that is important.”
Results that use inaccurate data and are therefore unreliable.
“The health care industry has something called “profits”. Government agencies don’t need to make this and in this case have no incentive to.”
The government is still limited by its own financial conditions, and that is why people end up on waiting lists and many treatments are denied. Sure, you may have insured the whole population, but what good does it do when people still can’t get treatments – access to a waiting list is not medical care.
You basically want this scenario – maintain high quality of medical care, that covers everyone with no rationing or waiting lists and is provided ‘free’ – not going to happen. I can sympathize with the ideal, and would support it if it had a realistic chance of happening, but there is no free lunch.
“If you don’t own a car, why should you pay for roads? If you don’t have children, why should you pay for schools?”
I agree, they shouldn’t!
“I don’t think it’s the federal government’s job – not not mention it has no authority - to be involved with it to begin with.”
But that is the point- it isn’t that way in Canada. The government provides a guideline and the states work out their own plans.
“Yes, the markets are not perfect, but it’s less imperfect than the government.”
Don’t make an absolute statement on the ability of the markets. It depends, as always, on the field and how much the government has a stake.
“Results that use inaccurate data and are therefore unreliable. ”
The data is perfectly accurate. Your complaint is that it doesn’t correct for the fact that the US has an extremely high murder, teen pregnancy, and accident rate. I have yet to see you produce the study that shows what the corrected rate it.
“The government is still limited by its own financial conditions,”
The Federal government isn’t.
“that is why people end up on waiting lists and many treatments are denied.”
And you were just complaining about people getting unnecesary procedures and treating every little thing. If it is not critical, disfiguring, painful or otherwise urgent it gets moved down the line because the demand for health care is infinite.
“but what good does it do when people still can’t get treatments – access to a waiting list is not medical care.”
The people who need care will get treatments with conditions that are less serious simply requiring you to wait. It is almost like what happens when you dump a bunch more individuals into the system- but that couldn’t be it could it?
“that covers everyone with no rationing or waiting lists and is provided ‘free’ ”
I’m good with rationing, waiting lists and charges for elective procedures.
“I agree, they shouldn’t!”
It is similar to the system where schools were paid through property taxes… which meant the rich had better schools than the poor AND lower percentage taxes. As you can imagine this causes a problem as it screws over the have-nots.
Society does not work when people are only concerned with number one. After all, it is in everyones common interest that the next generation aren’t idiots, everyone buys goods that are carried by truck, everyone depends on society in one way or another. If people don’t pitch in the whole system falls apart.
“The data is perfectly accurate. Your complaint is that it doesn’t correct for the fact that the US has an extremely high murder, teen pregnancy, and accident rate. I have yet to see you produce the study that shows what the corrected rate it.”
Yes, and therefore you draw an incorrect conclusion.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html
“And you were just complaining about people getting unnecesary procedures and treating every little thing. If it is not critical, disfiguring, painful or otherwise urgent it gets moved down the line because the demand for health care is infinite.”
Yes, treating minor things should be paid for by the individual. The denial of care the government engages in is for major things like newest cancer treatments and heart surgeries if you fall outside some statistical parameter.
“The people who need care will get treatments with conditions that are less serious simply requiring you to wait. It is almost like what happens when you dump a bunch more individuals into the system- but that couldn’t be it could it?”
There are tons of stories of people being forced to wait for serious conditions, not just minor ones. So waiting lists and rationing come about from adding a small percentage of people to the system? Or is it the crippling inefficiency of bureaucrat-run programs? And why would it take over 1000-pages of legislation to just insure the uninsured?
“After all, it is in everyones common interest that the next generation aren’t idiots, everyone buys goods that are carried by truck, everyone depends on society in one way or another. If people don’t pitch in the whole system falls apart.”
It won’t fall apart. Even if all roads were privatized we’d still get goods and services. The costs of maintaining the roads are reflected in the costs of those good/services, whether paid in tolls or taxes.
As for schools, if an individual makes a personal choice not to have children, they should not have to pay for someone else’s children. It is theft to take from one person for the benefit of another, whether through taxes or any other euphemism. Not to mention how government-run schools tend to underperform private schools, and parents are often denied vouchers from politicians and teachers’ union who block it.
“Yes, and therefore you draw an incorrect conclusion.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html”
“Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s analysis does not account for the fact a better health care system would have saved more accident victims and thus would have boosted life expectancy. In fact, in 2002, Harvard researchers argued that the U.S. murder rate is much lower than it would otherwise have been because so many assault victims are being saved by improved medical care. ”
My personal favorite- lower life expectancy is because Americans are fatter. Which is true… and misses the point entirely. After all, that falls under preventative care!
“Yes, treating minor things should be paid for by the individual. The denial of care the government engages in is for major things like newest cancer treatments and heart surgeries if you fall outside some statistical parameter. ”
All preventative care should be covered by the government. Cosmetic stuff isn’t usually under NHC (hint- look at the British teeth). Livesaving measures are generally the main thing covered by NHC.
“There are tons of stories of people being forced to wait for serious conditions, not just minor ones. ”
If they are alive to tell them the doctors obviously made the right choice. If they are dead than the doctors fucked up. The question is how many died compared to how many would have died without a system in place.
“So waiting lists and rationing come about from adding a small percentage of people to the system?”
About 15% of the population is NOT a small proportion.
“Or is it the crippling inefficiency of bureaucrat-run programs?”
You do realize all large scale operations require bureacracy in order to function, right? How is there going to be a difference between a government and a business one in this case?
“And why would it take over 1000-pages of legislation to just insure the uninsured?”
Because the world is complicated and giving individuals blank checks is a good way to set up little dictators.
“Even if all roads were privatized we’d still get goods and services. ”
No, there are large sections of the roads that simply cannot pay for themselves and any corp would let fall apart. To bad for you rural folks!
“The costs of maintaining the roads are reflected in the costs of those good/services, whether paid in tolls or taxes.”
You don’t get it, do you? If it isn’t profitable, the service won’t be provided. Why have a good portion of the populance that is uninsured? Now imagine that for every government provided service.
“As for schools, if an individual makes a personal choice not to have children, they should not have to pay for someone else’s children.”
So you want to make the tax structure even more complicated AND to screw over the educational system. Yeah, reducing funding even more won’t have bad effects on the quality of education. And when the jobs go to countries that bother to have competant educational systems and we can’t tax them for money… well, to bad I guess.
“It is theft to take from one person for the benefit of another, whether through taxes or any other euphemism.”
So? You do realize the reason governments exist? Because anarchy doesn’t work.
“Not to mention how government-run schools tend to underperform private schools,”
What? Schools that get to choose their students and have more money often perorm better?
“and parents are often denied vouchers from politicians and teachers’ union who block it.”
The system isn’t perfect therefore we will destory?
“My personal favorite- lower life expectancy is because Americans are fatter. Which is true… and misses the point entirely. After all, that falls under preventative care!”
Obesity is mostly due to lifestyle choices, not preventative care. If someone wants to eat bad foods and not exercise, that’s their choice. Unless you advocate even more government intrusion – telling people what they can and cannot eat. Maybe mandating a certain amount of exercise each week?
“All preventative care should be covered by the government.”
Why? It’s already been shown to not help.
“Livesaving measures are generally the main thing covered by NHC.”
And they don’t do a very good job at it either.
“If they are alive to tell them the doctors obviously made the right choice.”
The only reason they are alive is because they traveled to the U.S. for care.
“About 15% of the population is NOT a small proportion.”
It’s only about 10% who are what can be called ‘chronically’ uninsured. For whatever reason they forgo it. No need to risk damaging the quality of care, rationing, and waiting lists for 10% who are irresponsible. And if adding those 10% through a government program means rationing and waiting lists, then the government doesn’t do a very good job.
“You do realize all large scale operations require bureacracy in order to function, right? How is there going to be a difference between a government and a business one in this case?”
A business bureaucracy is far more efficient with less waste and more accountability compared to anything in the public sector. You won’t find a business buying a $436 hammer or $640 toilet seats.
“Because the world is complicated and giving individuals blank checks is a good way to set up little dictators.”
No, it’s because it does a lot more than that. The bill takes the decision making process out of the hands of doctors and patients, sets up
deathend-of-life panels, provides taxpayer coverage for illegal aliens, choice will be reduced to one (government), taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN), and much more all paving the way to a nationalized nightmare.”You don’t get it, do you? If it isn’t profitable, the service won’t be provided.”
You don’t seem to get it. Why is profit a bad word? If it weren’t for a profit motive, you wouldn’t have 99.9% of the things you own! Not to mention there would be no life-saving drugs and technology.
“So you want to make the tax structure even more complicated AND to screw over the educational system. Yeah, reducing funding even more won’t have bad effects on the quality of education. And when the jobs go to countries that bother to have competant educational systems and we can’t tax them for money… well, to bad I guess.”
Don’t’ act like you are against a complicated progressive tax structure. You probably oppose a flat or fair tax. And more funding does not equal better performance. Jobs going overseas have nothing to do with the education system; it’s due to the hostile attitude towards business and tax code in this country.
“So? You do realize the reason governments exist? Because anarchy doesn’t work.”
You do realize theft is immoral? And the role of government isn’t to be a nanny state and redistribute ‘wealth’. It’s to keep one person from using force on another, to protect property rights, to enforce contracts, national defense, and control the borders. Limited government is not anarchy.
“What? Schools that get to choose their students and have more money often perorm better?”
Wrong. Private schools have much less money than their public counterparts, which is why private school teachers make less money compared to public school teachers. Yet, amazingly they can produce better students with less money. Who would have thought academic achievement might actually have to do with kids who want to learn, who put forth an effort, children are disciplined, as well as involved parents who encourage study and learning over partying and goofing off. And yes, students who are at school for the wrong reasons and are disruptive to class should be kicked out so they don’t ruin it for the rest of the class.
“The system isn’t perfect therefore we will destory?”
No, we go back to what works best – less government and more competition. Since government started getting involved with the education system, as usual, over time the quality has gone down while the costs went up. The federal government is totally in control of the education system in Washington D.C. with almost the highest spending per pupil, but the result is some of the lowest test scores in the nation. If throwing money at every problem was the solution, they’d have the highest scores, but it’s just the opposite.
As much as I’d like to continue this ad infinitum I think it’s time to wrap this up since neither one of us is going to convince the other. Not only that, but things are getting repetitive or way off topic at this point. If someone else wants to chime in and continue with you, that’s fine. Thanks for the debate!
“I think it’s time to wrap this up since neither one of us is going to convince the other. Not only that, but things are getting repetitive or way off topic at this point. If someone else wants to chime in and continue with you, that’s fine. Thanks for the debate!”
Does that mean you don’t want another responce? Shouldn’t one be put in just for the record?