Obama on insurance companies

A Can of Man

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57D47P20090814?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Basically President Obama claims that insurance companies are bankrupting American families and businesses and is holding America "hostage" and making great profits from it.
Doesn't sound too far from the truth either and I'm glad someone's standing up to these guys for a change.
5.56's insurance company Aetna, got a favorable honorable mention as the one company that's actually stuck to the agreements made with the government. Which probably means the others have been using their lawyers to find loopholes and circumvent agreements.
 
Polling shows that well over half of the people polled ranked thier health Insurance as "good to excellant". As long as the majority have that opinion ObamaCare will have problems. So were going to see Obama & his coconspirators in the Main Stream Media demonize the Insurance Compnys untill they convince the majority that they were wrong about insurance.
 
Funny thing is, I was very unhappy with the coverage I got while I was stateside compared to the coverage I got in other countries. The price to quality ratio was just horrid. I don't work for mainstream media. I think a few other folks here who have lived in more than one country have similar views on this as well (again, company and military compounds don't count because you're not exposed to the reality of the actual society itself).
As for the poll, we'll need a source.
 
I've never had any problems with insurance companies until Obama got elected. the Insurance for me and the wife is good, not expensive at all, and has descent bennies, but my kids were on famis, which is insurance for working families, the insurance for working families was good until Obama care got to congress, now all of a sudden after 10 years, we now make too much to keep famis for the kids (no pay raise in the last 3 years) an yet last year we were well under the cap, now were $3.75 over, which means my kids are now on my city insurance, now with Obama care the city is thinking about canceling the provided insurance when the Obama care starts, which will screw my entire family I agree with redneck though, insurance in other countries is sometimes better than here. I don't liek teh health care reform Obama is trying to get, I think his idea has good intentions, but it will either end up breaking this country to nothig, or state run and totally corrupt and fubar.
 
My parents have had nothing but trouble with our insurance company. And we can't switch, because with my father having heart problems no company will take the risk.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Funny thing is, I was very unhappy with the coverage I got while I was stateside compared to the coverage I got in other countries. The price to quality ratio was just horrid. I don't work for mainstream media. I think a few other folks here who have lived in more than one country have similar views on this as well (again, company and military compounds don't count because you're not exposed to the reality of the actual society itself).
As for the poll, we'll need a source.
Click to expand...

I can't say I was unhappy with the coverage I got while there but I never had to use it for anything major, however I have not actually heard anything positive about them from people who have had major on going problems in fact in every case the people have either ended up bankrupt from being abandoned by insurance companies or having to go to court to get their money.

There is simply no comparison to the insurance I have here where for around $40 a month I get 100% coverage for myself and wife for all non-elective medical issues (there are other options such as 60/40, 80/20 coverage as well while are cheaper again).

We also have national healthcare as well if I was to ever decide to leave private health, but with all the "no claims" bonuses offered by the company I am with it is unlikely that will ever happen.
 
Last edited:
Well MontyB, what you say is true and it means that the American healthcare system has some serious issues.
What I don't get is why people defend it fanatically almost it seems when it is pretty obviously in need of serious overhaul.
I hope it's not another case of nationalism.
There were some pretty good policy ideas that were considered here as well that would have saved people a LOT of time and money (such as the plan to impliment more English into the national curriculum not just for language but also for the subjects the students learn such as math and science) and it got shot down because of nationalism. All the while parents spend a fortune sending their kids off to English Academies after school to learn... English!
 
For those of you who said they never had any problems, I am just curious have ever had any major surgury that is expensive? Because THAT was were the majority of problems start coming from. The HMOs pose no hinderence to their customers as long as they stay healthy, its when they start getting sick that issues arise. Let me remind you all that the leading cause of bankruptcy in America is due to medical costs.

Then of course is the 47 Million Americans that have no insurance at all.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Well MontyB, what you say is true and it means that the American healthcare system has some serious issues.
What I don't get is why people defend it fanatically almost it seems when it is pretty obviously in need of serious overhaul.
I hope it's not another case of nationalism.
There were some pretty good policy ideas that were considered here as well that would have saved people a LOT of time and money (such as the plan to impliment more English into the national curriculum not just for language but also for the subjects the students learn such as math and science) and it got shot down because of nationalism. All the while parents spend a fortune sending their kids off to English Academies after school to learn... English!
Click to expand...

The problem is that as long as there is party politics nothing will change, Republicans suggest a fix and Democrats shoot it down, Democrats suggest a fix and Republicans shoot it down and it doesn't matter how good the fix is.

Friends a very opposed to healthcare reform primarily because and I quote "I don't want my tax money spent on other people" which intrigues me as these guys wrap themselves in the flag and have all done service in various branches of the military and I find it odd that people are prepared to lay down their lives for people that they are not prepared to help in any other way.
 
MontyB said:
The problem is that as long as there is party politics nothing will change, Republicans suggest a fix and Democrats shoot it down, Democrats suggest a fix and Republicans shoot it down and it doesn't matter how good the fix is.

Friends a very opposed to healthcare reform primarily because and I quote "I don't want my tax money spent on other people" which intrigues me as these guys wrap themselves in the flag and have all done service in various branches of the military and I find it odd that people are prepared to lay down their lives for people that they are not prepared to help in any other way.
Click to expand...

Actually the republicans dont propose a fix, that's entirely the problem.

A little History

Clinton proposed reforming healthcare in the 1990s -the GOP shot it down
Kerry proposed reforming healthcare in the 2004 election -the GOP shot it down
Obama proposed reforming healthcare...stay tuned.

Never once has the GOP offered a sincerely attempted in good faith to reform health care. In fact I haven't heard a single serious proposal on heath-care from the GOP since about Nixon. The HMOs have their slimy hands so far up the GOP's skirt, they cannot even stand up without them knowing about it. The only time they mention health care reform is just prior to an election, you can set your watch to it. After the election ends...zip. The GOP only goal is to kill any reform, because any redorm would hurt the bottom line of their election financial backers.

This is why Obama should borrow a page from Bush, forget partisanship and simply ignore the minority. I think it was a mistake for obama to wait for a vote until after the recess because on this one issue the gop has absolutely no intention to negotiate in good faith. They have been bought.

Take Grassey one of 4 GOP senators talking to Obama. Grassey demands that for him to sign on to the bill Obama must drop the public option. The Public option is the centerpiece of the bill, without that there is no reform. That is their idea of negociation. F*** partisanship, it certainly didnt bother the GOP when they were in charge. They have no reason to complain. Obama made healthcare reform a top subject during election, nobody can say this was a surprise. People elected him knowing he was going to make some big changes. If they didnt they the fault is on them for not paying attention to the election.
 
Last edited:
Unless of course the Democrats also want it to fail and go about trying to appear to be tackling the problem all the while making proposals they know the GOP would shoot down and intentionally not pursue it with enough vigor to make it work.
Dunno just a little conspiracy theory there but I kind of doubt that as well. I don't think the insurance companies have been funding any of the major Democrats.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Unless of course the Democrats also want it to fail and go about trying to appear to be tackling the problem all the while making proposals they know the GOP would shoot down and intentionally not pursue it with enough vigor to make it work.
Dunno just a little conspiracy theory there but I kind of doubt that as well. I don't think the insurance companies have been funding any of the major Democrats.
Click to expand...

I doubt Obama would have gone to all that trouble if that were the case. Obama has said he would rather pass reform and lose reelection, thats not something the Dems would want.

There are a few dems like Max Baucus who do want it to fail, but then old Max has recieved almost $2 Million in donations from insurance companies to date. I dont think anyone needs to be drawn a picture why hes voting as he does.

As I said this is about a Trillion Dollar Industry, it has nothing to do about democracy, socialism, or anything else. Its about money.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
I doubt Obama would have gone to all that trouble if that were the case. Obama has said he would rather pass reform and lose reelection, thats not something the Dems would want.

There are a few dems like Max Baucus who do want it to fail, but then old Max has recieved almost $2 Million in donations from insurance companies to date. I dont think anyone needs to be drawn a picture why hes voting as he does.

As I said this is about a Trillion Dollar Industry, it has nothing to do about democracy, socialism, or anything else. Its about money.
Click to expand...

Sources please for $2 million in insurance donation.
 
MontyB said:
The problem is that as long as there is party politics nothing will change, Republicans suggest a fix and Democrats shoot it down, Democrats suggest a fix and Republicans shoot it down and it doesn't matter how good the fix is.

Friends a very opposed to healthcare reform primarily because and I quote "I don't want my tax money spent on other people" which intrigues me as these guys wrap themselves in the flag and have all done service in various branches of the military and I find it odd that people are prepared to lay down their lives for people that they are not prepared to help in any other way.
Click to expand...
US founded on "rugged individualism". It was extremely embarrasing to be "on the dole", @ least untill LBJ made it one of his priorities to make it OK to accept handouts & welfare. It's been all down hill since.
As far as so called "reform", it does nothing but increase the power of the Nanny State, increases the Govt power over the people.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a big fan of the dole either nor am I a big fan of simple handouts and I'm even against affirmative action for that matter. But there are some services that need to be taken care of by the country. Having a good healthcare system, having a good police force and having a good fire department are among those categories.
Seriously, if it offers nothing but take from you, what is the point of having the country in the first place? If you really want "rugged individualism" you can go to the areas of the globe where anarchy thrives. You will find rugged individualism in spades.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I'm not a big fan of the dole either nor am I a big fan of simple handouts and I'm even against affirmative action for that matter. But there are some services that need to be taken care of by the country. Having a good healthcare system, having a good police force and having a good fire department are among those categories.
Seriously, if it offers nothing but take from you, what is the point of having the country in the first place? If you really want "rugged individualism" you can go to the areas of the globe where anarchy thrives. You will find rugged individualism in spades.
Click to expand...
Rugged Individualism is self reliance, doesn't really have anything to do with anarchy. National defence is something traditionaly done by the national govt. Fire Departments are a funtion of local gov. Health is something that was personal between the person & the doc, or the person buying insurance himself. During WWII FDR froze wages resulting in companies having to compete for labor with something other than higher wages, namely benifits such as health insurance. In the decades that have passed, it has gone from an unexpected plus to something we expect to be provided for us. Now that companies are having trouble providing it (may have been the actual cause of the GM bankruptcy) we expect the Govt. to privde it, we're slipping down the slope rapidly these days.
 
You don't have to pay the fire department to put out the fire in your house, why should you have to pay the ambulance that takes you to the hospital for smoke inhalation?
 
The Other Guy said:
You don't have to pay the fire department to put out the fire in your house, why should you have to pay the ambulance that takes you to the hospital for smoke inhalation?
Click to expand...
In the Roman Empire the Fire Dept would come to a fire & decide what the bill would be, pay up or they let the building burn down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top