Obama's health plan takes shape

Nurses Activism

Published

Barack Obama's health plan takes shape

Source

If Congress were to take a vote on a health reform bill today, Democrats and Republicans would find a surprising level of agreement-so much so that the broad outlines of a consensus plan already are taking shape.

Sick or healthy, rich or poor, all Americans would be guaranteed access to health insurance.

In fact, they'd probably be required to purchase it-perhaps through mandates in the law that would include stiff tax penalties for anyone who tried to opt out.

Newly created insurance marketplaces would make finding a plan as easy as shopping for cheap airfare. People could keep their coverage, even if they switched jobs. And they might be able to choose between private insurers and a government-backed plan.

But here's the catch-none of this would come free, with the wealthiest Americans likely to face higher taxes to help pay for coverage for all.

It's hard to believe that only three months ago, health care advocates worried that President Barack Obama would drop the health reform issue from his first-year agenda. Now, with an August deadline to pass a bill, a compromise that once seemed unimaginable is considered quite possible, both sides say.

Do you mean other than Fox Noise being the unofficial house organ of the Shrub administration???

Faux News has about as much journalistic "credibility" as Pravda or TASS from the Soviet Union days.

Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute and Matthew Greenwald & Associates, Inc., 2009 Health Confidence Survey. The "public plan option" results include respondents' reaction to the possibility of "creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase." The individual mandate question included the phrase "charging a fine to individuals who choose not to have health insurance coverage."11ucdb5.jpg

Obviously, your mind has already been made up even before the ABC special has aired, and regardless of what would actually be on the program.

As for ABC being the new Al-jazeera, it's laughable considering that Faux News is nothing but the media arm of the GOP, going as far as to "report" GOP talking points as "news," including typos. :rolleyes:

You are right my mind has been made up already because I think they have already started down the slippery slope. Whether or not we actually descend down the slope is irrelevant because of the precedent it sets.

I agree fox news is a joke and has a obvious right-leaning bias.

Do you mean other than Fox Noise being the unofficial house organ of the Shrub administration???

Can you give me a discrete example of when fox gave Bush the podium, without any detraction from the other side, to push a controversial plan that was already embattled in congress? I doubt it.

While I agree fox news had already crossed the line of reputable journalism, what ABC is doing goes a step farther.

Faux News has about as much journalistic "credibility" as Pravda or TASS from the Soviet Union days.

The article makes note that those who have been following the debate show much less support for the current plan than those that have not been following it. Anyone have the data on that?

These are the same links people have posted before. Look I am not arguing with you that there have been people who have interviewed other presidents (both Bushes, Clinton etc), done interviews in the White House, and the like. People seem to be harping on the idea of "unprecedented access." The access is not what is unprecedented; it is the context and motivation of the special that conflicts objective journalism.

What I am arguing is that none of these other "interviews" with the president have been so clearly created to push an embattled bill. The interview is specifically centered around the health care bill. When Fox followed around Bush it wasnt to push a specific bill. It may have been to push Bush as a "common man" who mends fences but it wasn't to field questions to turn public opinion on a specific issue. A network (including fox) should not be giving the podium to only one side in the debate. That is journalistic misconduct.

It's a given that corporate media have been enablers of how we got to where we are today. None of them look good.

Here's a big part of the largely unreported story. As Nomi Prins points out in It Takes A Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals From Washington to Wall Street, we've given the banks enough trillions to have paid for forclosures, healthcare, and student loans.

Goldman Sachs is going to pay out record bonuses this year. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/22/report_goldman_sachs_on_pace_to

The healthcare story and the banking story are absolutely linked. Don't you remember voting to hand trillions to these banks?

Specializes in ICU/CCU/TRAUMA/ECMO/BURN/PACU/.
I suppose you want everyone kids and grandkids to have social security as well. Look how well funded that is going to be. You can have great health care if you don't get pregnant at 14 stay off drugs get an education and don't vote democrat. Otherwise healthcare for all will be like Cuban health care for all.

Wow, your remarks sound rather mean-spirited and off topic. Why wouldn't you want children, or anyone for that matter to have healthcare security? Is not the hypothetical 14 year old you mentioned most likely a victim in need of help? Since when do nurses blame and judge such victims for their misfortune? There are a myriad of socio-economic determinants of the behaviors you deride. Would you turn your back on this girl or her child? A compassionate just society would seek to help her. That's why I think Obama's health plan should be single payer; publicy accountable...with care based on medical necessity. It shouldn't be rationed on ability to pay.

Wow, your remarks sound rather mean-spirited and off topic. Why wouldn't you want children, or anyone for that matter to have healthcare security? Is not the hypothetical 14 year old you mentioned most likely a victim in need of help? Since when do nurses blame and judge such victims for their misfortune? There are a myriad of socio-economic determinants of the behaviors you deride. Would you turn your back on this girl or her child? A compassionate just society would seek to help her. That's why I think Obama's health plan should be single payer; publicy accountable...with care based on medical necessity. It shouldn't be rationed on ability to pay.

Of course compassion goes a long way but I think the one thing you are leaving out is personal responsibility.

That 14 year old made a choice to have sex at that age. That drug addict made a choice to use drugs. And while there may be socio-economic determinants of behaviors (a politically correct way of saying these behaviors are found at a much higher rate in the poor) let us not forget the individual still should bear some responsibility.

You frame your argument in a moral light saying a just and compassionate society would help the pregnant 14 year old. How though, is it more just to force people to pay for her decision or deliver her care against their will. Is is not more just to have her bare some personal responsibility for her action instead of placing her responsibility on the shoulders of those who had nothing to do with her choice? Or is it better to just sweep it under the rug and have the rich pay for her choices? I am not saying we should turn our backs on the girl but it is not a black and white morality issue.

This is not directed at anyone on this board: I have to hand it to the democrats in favor of the gov't run nat'l heath care system for framing the issue in a moral light. It was quite savvy.

SEIU teams up with Laughing Liberally to parody anti-reformers:

Community outreach

qoHCmq2lhe4

Message strategy session

AzDwXr9szxw

What if we ran the fire department like we run the health care system?

IhpUG4apgrE

Specializes in My son...for now..
Of course compassion goes a long way but I think the one thing you are leaving out is personal responsibility.

That 14 year old made a choice to have sex at that age. That drug addict made a choice to use drugs. And while there may be socio-economic determinants of behaviors (a politically correct way of saying these behaviors are found at a much higher rate in the poor) let us not forget the individual still should bear some responsibility.

You frame your argument in a moral light saying a just and compassionate society would help the pregnant 14 year old. How though, is it more just to force people to pay for her decision or deliver her care against their will. Is is not more just to have her bare some personal responsibility for her action instead of placing her responsibility on the shoulders of those who had nothing to do with her choice? Or is it better to just sweep it under the rug and have the rich pay for her choices? I am not saying we should turn our backs on the girl but it is not a black and white morality issue.

This is not directed at anyone on this board: I have to hand it to the democrats in favor of the gov't run nat'l heath care system for framing the issue in a moral light. It was quite savvy.

Question, who do you believe pays for the choices of this underage uninsured person now? We do, in a roundabout ineffecient manner. Most 14 year olds I know do know how to disrobe, but how to find low cost healthcare. More than likely she will enroll in some medicaid program that taxpayers finance. If a person isn't so lucky to receive medicaid, then most likely they will just utilize the er inappropriately. While I do think it is a moral imperative to provide care for all of us, it just makes more financial sense

Specializes in ICU/CCU/TRAUMA/ECMO/BURN/PACU/.
Of course compassion goes a long way but I think the one thing you are leaving out is personal responsibility.

That 14 year old made a choice to have sex at that age. That drug addict made a choice to use drugs. And while there may be socio-economic determinants of behaviors (a politically correct way of saying these behaviors are found at a much higher rate in the poor) let us not forget the individual still should bear some responsibility.

You frame your argument in a moral light saying a just and compassionate society would help the pregnant 14 year old. How though, is it more just to force people to pay for her decision or deliver her care against their will. Is is not more just to have her bare some personal responsibility for her action instead of placing her responsibility on the shoulders of those who had nothing to do with her choice? Or is it better to just sweep it under the rug and have the rich pay for her choices? I am not saying we should turn our backs on the girl but it is not a black and white morality issue.

This is not directed at anyone on this board: I have to hand it to the democrats in favor of the gov't run nat'l heath care system for framing the issue in a moral light. It was quite savvy.

So, let me get this straight. You seem to be implying, rather onerously, that lack of access to health care should be part of the punishment doled out to a young person who makes a "bad choice." (Yeah, that will sure teach them responsibility....cynicism intended). And what about the innocent life she is carrying? The mother should have to risk a premature delivery with life long consequences for her newborn...that pain and suffering should be part of the consequences for her lack of maturity and so-called poor choices?

Only prisoners in this country have a right to health care. Withholding health care is considered cruel and unusual punishment and withholding medically necessary healthcare from prisoners of war is considered a form of torture.

Again, you seem to have missed the point about the socio-economic determinants of behavior and health. Even rich Republican's daughters and sons are tempted by sex and alcohol just like kids of rich or poor democrats, independents, libertarians, and non-voting atheists. The rich kids make poor choices, yet because their families have means to pay for healthcare, their babies are born healthy or they can choose to have an abortion. They get medical treatment and counselling because their families can afford it. Sometimes they get kicked out of the house, or run away from abusive situations and get taken advantage of by criminals. Maybe they have single parents, or parents who work two jobs, or parents who have alcohol and addiction problems themselves. How can you expect a child to learn the social graces if they have impaired parents? It takes a village...a compassionate village that recognizes and honors the potential and value of every human life.

Without a single payer system, we are turning our backs on people who need health care. Health care should be organized as a public service, like a fire department. A health system organized as a business is discriminatory and accountable to no one. At some point in our lives all of us will predictably need health care. Hence health insurance is unlike any other form of insurance; we all are involved.

So, let me get this straight. You seem to be implying, rather onerously, that lack of access to health care should be part of the punishment doled out to a young person who makes a "bad choice." (Yeah, that will sure teach them responsibility....cynicism intended). And what about the innocent life she is carrying? The mother should have to risk a premature delivery with life long consequences for her newborn...that pain and suffering should be part of the consequences for her lack of maturity and so-called poor choices?

Only prisoners in this country have a right to health care. Withholding health care is considered cruel and unusual punishment and withholding medically necessary healthcare from prisoners of war is considered a form of torture.

Again, you seem to have missed the point about the socio-economic determinants of behavior and health. Even rich Republican's daughters and sons are tempted by sex and alcohol just like kids of rich or poor democrats, independents, libertarians, and non-voting atheists. The rich kids make poor choices, yet because their families have means to pay for healthcare, their babies are born healthy or they can choose to have an abortion. They get medical treatment and counselling because their families can afford it. Sometimes they get kicked out of the house, or run away from abusive situations and get taken advantage of by criminals. Maybe they have single parents, or parents who work two jobs, or parents who have alcohol and addiction problems themselves. How can you expect a child to learn the social graces if they have impaired parents? It takes a village...a compassionate village that recognizes and honors the potential and value of every human life.

Without a single payer system, we are turning our backs on people who need health care. Health care should be organized as a public service, like a fire department. A health system organized as a business is discriminatory and accountable to no one. At some point in our lives all of us will predictably need health care. Hence health insurance is unlike any other form of insurance; we all are involved.

That is a Straw man argument. What I am actually saying is that it is that the whole issue of "universal health care" is not a cut and dry moral issue. Having one group pay for another's bad decision is not exactly solid moral ground.

Prisoners dont really have the right to health care, it is just illegal not to provide health care because they cannot seek health care from a different source. Perhaps it is semantics but it is an important distinction.

I am not a republican.

Sure even rich kid's get pregnant but let us not front about what UHC actually is, a redistribution of wealth and nothing more. And how is that just?

Liberals talk about the poor as if they are victims of their circumstance. Conservatives talk about the poor as if they are a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings who try and sap the state. Neither is true. The reality lies somewhere in the middle.

+ Add a Comment