About 600 people crowded a room in the Science building at Iowa Central Community College in Fort Dodge, Iowa.
Senator Obama promised affordable healthcare for all. He also pledged to negotiate for the best prescription drug rates and make sure that along with the healthcare coverage people aren't denied necessary surgeries or procedures just because it would save the insurance companies money.
He promised this not in 10 or 15 years but by the end of his first term.
Interesting. But he didn't outline how he is going to do this.
Now if the drug companies and insurance companies come out denouncing Obama he might just be on to something.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 82
Politics is the art of the possible.
Not that I disagree . . . but based on what, exactly, do you make this point? She was literally demonized for her last proposal when it turns out she was right . . . . now the anti-Hillary train keeps calling her a sell-out, but never with any real back-up for the charges. Meanwhile, Obama's lack of a concrete proposal is quite disconcerting. Currently, he leads in Iowa 31 points to Hillary's 26 points . . . Edwards holding at 21 points. It's about to get interesting! ;)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Or how about an insurance that everyone excepts. Not just certain doctors. So you have call 20 of them and really have no choice in who you go to.
Think Obama's a genius? He's really doing this because he has a shot at being the first black man as President.
Think any of the rest of the Democrat or Republican hopefuls (excluding Ron Paul, the Libertarian) is a genius? Hardly. Therefore, aside of the Libertarian, is there another Calvin Coolidge in the house?
But it's better Hillary then any Republican that will just let the system do what it wants, and more and more people fall out of the system all together for not being rich enough.
I'm not expecting much out of any Dem that wins. Reagan policies and Bush policies have stacked the deck against socialism working smart along side WITH capitalism.
Free and affordable are two different things but we need a change. Like the saying goes- Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!
Yeah, right . . . much better to have millions with no coverage and thousands suffering and dying than keep their coverage, eh? Would you care to explain which 'country' wishes it didn't have Universal Healthcare . . . but was just wacky enough to continue protecting its citizens anyway?? Just curious.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
But they're too rich and powerful from doing it. They make money on our money. The whole American economy is turning into mega businesses that just make money on money - and U.S. business now doesn't make much of anything else.
Shocking !!!
They are going to push it to the point where the average American will not be able to afford insurance or medicine. A small business person can not affrod double digit increases in health care cost every year and small business is the back bone of the American economy. Also the population is aging and insurance companies will not insure pre-existing condtions at a reasonable cost.
End of life care ran my mom $12,000 per chemo treatment for liver cancer not many people can afford that, not to mention other costs such as home health care, medicine and hospice costs.
As for Hillary she started out strong but you dont hear healthcare reform coming out of her 2 sided mouth any more.
If you have to pay 500 a month for health insruance or 500 a month for taxes to provide health insurance what is the difference?
People would have a lot fewer hospital and doctor bills if they would get over the idea that every time they get a scratch or the sniffles they have to see a doctor. I've seen people in emergency rooms that had nothing at all wrong with them that a bandaid or an asprin and going to bed would not cure. Most of them had a welfare medicaid card
Hillary isn't a perfect Goddess Saint, duh, but she sure as heck ain't stupid, either. She speaks very well, no matter what name calling I read on Gather.
If anyone thinks it is cheap, think again it's costing nearly 500 a mo for the two of us but with our health problems we could pay for that policy for the next 50 or 70 years before we equaled what they have already paid out for our care. We paid nothing more than our premiums.
Colonel George W, I'm SO sure you hang out at the hospital and take a survey of who has what - and if it's important - and how they pay.
You have told a lie, fer shure.
Not that it really matters what I say about her. She can hold her own.
You could also change how you say that and just say she has basic manners - if you wanted.
"If you have to pay 500 a month for health insruance or 500 a month for taxes to provide health insurance what is the difference?"
Not quite true 'Colonel' and you should know it so I have to agree with Peter that you're intentionally misleading here. Medicare has a 2% administrative cost, not 30% and the single-payer insurance, where the US Government is 'the' payer will save us HUGE amounts AND cover every man, woman and child at the same time it saves us money! Right now, it's not even available to everyone who COULD pay . . . much less those that don't and the $500 a month premiums you refer to are MUCH higher because you're paying ALREADY for the uninsured.
Here we can save money and lives and people are acting . . . what a shocker . . . afraid. Fear is such a good tool to make people vote against what's in their own best interest. And "FACTS" (Boy am I using the term loosely here) . . . like the 'Colonel' mentioning his personal views on poor welfare bandaid vicitms even IF they were true, simply does not take into account the catastrophic required treatment of actual uninsured people and is a freeekin' drop in a drop of a bucket of 300,000,000 people. Thousands dying and a SHAMEFUL infant mortality rate continuing to climb . . . where the Hell are the right to life people now? You know . . . when you have to put something up besides a mouthing off to some unborn child's rights . . . which END at birth? Where's the outrage? As soon as a single dime is involved . . . these people disappear.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Many people with employer "provided" health insurance are contributing over $400 a month for family coverage.
Maybe Universal Health care is actually cheaper. Maybe people would end up paying less, and the anxiety level would go down (now, if you have cancer or a heart attack you could still lose your house, even WITH insurance).
That isn't cheap.
Obama has already stated that he could raise plenty of money by raising the caps on taxable income, and ease the burden on health care consumers by allowing tax breaks and tax credits to individuals for their health care expenses.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Doyle I wanted to address your question. Yes Hillary sold out. I base this on the fact that she went after the healthcare industy with a vengence when Bill appointed her to some post...I cant remember the name of it. Anyway she was not only trying to get healthcare coverage for everyone she was trying to take down the big insurance companies. Then it stopped AND Hillary is now pledging she wants to make insurance affordable...and she has received almost a million dollars from BCBS AND she feels that the way they do business is fine AND she thinks that the government should subsidize the premiums.
What does that tell you.
At first she was going after the insurance companies for charging so much and for not delivering on life saving operations and procedures nowshe is OK with the premiums and is going so far as to want to keep the same prices that the insurance companies are paid but instead have the government help pay them.
Really? On what do you base your opinion since there has been no Socialist Country in the history of the world? All socialistic ideas are partial implementations. Furthermore . . . it seems to work well enough for President George ""I likes my Socialized Plan" Bush . . . who chooses it over privatized insurance. It seems to be working well for Medicare and the VA too.
Fact is, it will cost us less. Period. And your theory of diminishing returns is a complete crock. So a small business with four employees can cover their people for less per person that a company with 70,000 employees?? Yeah. You keep believing that and shaking those pom poms for the unethical profits made at the cost of human lives . . . profits that can only be realized by denying medical treatment.
Norman, I'll say this a plainly as I can. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Try reading something.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
In Germany, my husband and I together paid about 300 Euros per month in healthcare. At that time we were about lower middle-class. I was still studying full-time. Before we got married, I paid about 50 Euros a month as a student and he was covered through his parents. For that, if you had a sore throat, you went directly to the throat specialist - same-day appointment. If I went to the optometrist (generally same-day appointment, totally free), I would be given an entire battery of tests including measuring the pressure on my eyes to make sure the retina doesn't tear - something that happened to my father who now has slightly impaired vision because of it. I never mentioned his retina to them, they thought of this themselves. When I came down with food poisoning in another part of Germany, I was taken to the hospital in ambulance and kept there for two days, finally leaving at my own insistence. During this time I was given ultrasounds, blood tests, etc. you name it and actually had a room to myself in the hospital, which was nice because they let my husband sleep there with me. The only other time I've ever been in hospital was when I was born and other than the fact that I was very sick it was a strangely pleasant experience, as in everyone was very competent and considerably nicer than Germans generally speaking are.
You never have to wait for any medical test whatsoever in Germany. They rarely prescribe antibiotics, and generally speaking the doctors are so interested in fixing you up and interested in medicine generally that they will insist on your coming back if you are not completely satisfied with treatment, in fact, if they think it is necessary they will confer with other doctors on your behalf.
Besides the fact that you never know what is going to happen to you, it is a huge relief just to know that whatever can be done to fix you up is being done and if you do die, well - it must have been bloody impossible to save you.
Also, because of the emphasis on prevention, you get sick less often, i.e. you can work more. In fact, they'd probably live until 100 if they didn't voluntarily drink and smoke so much and insist on their right to live in a world without speed limits.
Since wages are much much higher in Germany than in the US (due to "socialism"), and the cost of living is kept low (due to "socialism"), the taxes don't hit you so hard. To be honest I never minded paying them, because you got a bang for your buck. Besides which they don't just tax the middle class - the richer you are the more you have to fork over. As a result, there is a much larger middle class in Germany and most "socialized" countries than in the US, which means more equality of opportunity for everyone.
Germany is a very large country (population almost 90 million), though geographically compact, which helps to make the system efficient. Even if you had half of what they do in the States, it would be a vast improvement on where you are currently.
In addition, people don't tend to "sap off the system" too much, because as relatively pleasant as they have managed to make being sick, it still sucks and few people want to spend more time than they have to at the doctor's office.
Germany may be in debt, but so is the United States, and if I had to choose between a country that spends my taxes on a health care system for me or one that spends them on mutilating other people in the alleged national interest, I know which one I'd choose.
The Canadian system is not so good as the German one, but still considerably better than in the States. I'd watch Sicko - the Canadian parts were filmed in the part of Canada where I used to live. Actually the hospital in London - that's where the doctor who delivered me worked :-) At least when my grandmother had a stroke a little while ago she was put up in hospital straight away and spent about six weeks in a special rehab centre. They also provide someone to come and test her blood every few days at minimal cost. This is very helpful to us, because my parents do not live close enough to her to be able to drive her to the hospital. She can pay for this from her own widow's pension - another example of socialism, but a much appreciated one - my grandmother only changed her citizenship to avoid being sent back to Spain and hardly speaks English. She doesn't precisely contribute a lot to the economy. However, my parents do (and my grandfather did before he died) and I don't know how they'd cope if they had to provide everything for her on top of it.
As so many others, my grandparents came to Canada with the shirts on their backs, and without some from of socialism that is still where we would be. Sometimes you need to pool your resources to get ahead.
Socialism in some aspects can be a very good thing, but you need to have a high level of accountability and transparency between politicians and the populace to discourage mismanagement.
Well spoken. Having also lived in Germany (back when there were two of them) . . . I know what was good. I CAN say this . . . the more you read the more you hear people talk about what they heard 'other people' say. Comments like "Ask someone in Canada . . . "
You know what you don't see? People talking about wanting to give up their coverage and come here and start overpaying for less . . . Nobody says I hate my guaranteed right to health and life . . . I wish we could add 30% to the cost, eliminate millions who have coverage, drive up the infant mortality rate and watch thousands literally suffer and die. ...And you're right about Thatcher . . . and they still do a better job than we do. I guess some people don't want their country to be the best in everything . . . but I'm not satisfied ranking 37th!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
It tells me she is choosing her battles. She's not the only one that wants affordable insurance . . . but she IS the only one that has the scars to show from taking them on.
"AND she feels that the way they do business is fine..."
Where'd you get that?
"nowshe is OK with the premiums and is going so far as to want to keep the same prices that the insurance companies are paid but instead have the government help pay them. "
Gonn need a source on that one.
Look, I'm not saying she's the best choice here . . . I'm not even saying she's not still a Republican like she was in her youth . . . I'm saying she sure seems to take a lot of flack from BOTH sides with little or no information of facts to back them up. Usually it's for things true of the other candidates as well. Why do you suppose that is?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The difference is that instead of paying $200 amonth for my own medical bills and insurance I will be paying $1000 in taxes so the other guy can get his medical treatment paid for.
Also, you continue to be stationed in Western Europe of your own volition...most people would not be sorry to see you leave. In the past there have been protests about your presence there, in particular regarding stationing nuclear weapons. The Europeans, understandably, did not take very kindly to the notion that you intended to fight World War Three in their back yards, unable in their ignorance to see how blowing them to smithereens with tactical nuclear devices would serve to protect them.
Currently, on the ground as I am here, I can say that there are regular protests about your using airports and military bases for your activities in the Middle East. Of particular concern to people is using those airports for rendition flights. We are not happy about this. Even many members of government who are allowing this use are not happy about it. I would keep this in mind if I were you.
Yes, you are entirely correct, in most countries, we do tend to think that funding health care for our citizens is a slightly higher priority than thinking of new ways to blow them up. We don't like the concept of private insurance in Canada, because we believe that all people are equal and entitled to the same health care.
Our system is in some respects faulty - I think in part because our politicians have been taking too many lessons from over the border. However, I think it is an exaggeration to say that "many" Canadians are "forced" to seek healthcare in the States. It very occasionally happens that someone is sent to the US for certain treatment, because that treatment is not available in Canada - so long as the treatment is not experimental, the cost is usually covered by the Canadian government. Very, very, few Canadians could afford to pay for their own serious operation in your country.
Actually the last guy I know who went abroad for treatment went to Germany, much more affordable, because even for a non-citizen the profit-margin is lower.
I do know of a few people who have wanted to go to the States for certain treatments which were not funded - although the whole town tried to raise money for them, they invariably died before enough was gathered. So, ultimately, since the prices are so high it doesn't really matter whether the treatment is theoretically available or not. It's about as useful as if you were walking on a desert with an aquifer a thousand feet below you. Even the concerted effort of thousands of people wasn't enough to raise that kind of cash.
To say that any life-threatening illness is a virtual death-sentence in Canada is completely false. There are many people who have undergone cancer treatment for decades and are still living.
Not that our system is perfect. We are a tenth of your population and more spread out - under these circumstances it is difficult to make any health care system efficient. I do think that the Canadian system needs to be revamped. In particular, it should be more affordable to become a doctor (my sister is currently in medical school and it's a huge strain, even with scholarships - though I guess in the States we never could have afforded to send her...) and it should be easier for immigrants to have their medical credentials acknowledged.
Sufficient money should go into funding equipment and staff.
This would be a more beneficial use of our resources then wallowing in Afghanistan. I do think that Afghanistan was in dire need of humanitarian intervention and I wouldn't begrudge the Canadian presence there for these purposes. However, I think it has become obvious that your government is largely obstructing achieving anything useful (except of course building that pipeline through to Tajikistan), so it would seem that we're wasting our resources while our soldiers are killed by "friendly fire" mostly from you guys, which is, at the very least, not helpful.
I don't want to just America-bash. There are serious problems in Europe and Canada, too, but unfortunately at the moment your government had managed to introduce a whole new level of repression into the hitherto somewhat "democratic" world and managed to re-frame the debate.
The healthcare debate is just one aspect of this: as a human rights lawyer, I don't think it bodes well for the future to allow people to grow up in abject poverty without even the hope of decent education and then to top it off bankrupt them if they have the misfortune to develop a serious illness.
The health system is a state-run monopoly in Canada, or rather several state-run monopolies since health care is in the hands of the provinces. But keep in mind the State is accountable to its people - when health care gets bad, we complain, we demand something and we know exactly who to demand it from. We're paying taxes after all.
In your "system", for lack of a better word, no one is accountable to the people. Therefore you have no real control over your health care options.
It is always the chief argument of those advocating private healthcare, etc. that one should take things into their "own hands", but this is a false argument. Only the very rich can sustain the cost of a long illness themselves. Your chances of belonging to this group are very slim. On your own, you are one little person against pharmaceutical and insurance companies. They are rich. You are not. You are screwed. The end. Unfortunately this is not a fairy-tale where you are going to win against the odds.
Furthermore, it hasn't gone by me that you choose to criticize the Canadian system, which falling part-way between the States and Europe as it does, suffers from a sort of identity-crisis, whereas you're not saying a word about the Germans.
I think you should not be so sure that your medical bills will only ever be $200 a month and you will be paying for someone else. You simply do not know if you will have an accident or develop a long, debilitating disease...MS, MD, Lou Gherig's.... There is no way you CAN know.
As a young person, I probably have not received as much in healthcare benefits as I have put in. But who knows???? Even if I were never to recuperate these costs, even if I were to be shot dead instantly tomorrow, even if I live to 95 fit as a fiddle (though to be honest, by that age everyone gets something, cataracts, a hip replacement) and die peacefully in my sleep...you know, I wouldn't care. I'd just be grateful that I had been spared the terrible illnesses some people have.
At least I wake up everyday knowing that I am guaranteed treatment by my, in essence, democratically elected government, in the event that I am hit by a car or develop leukemia. No bureaucrat can deny me this.
I'm a bit surprised at how uncharitable some Americans are when it comes to health care. To be honest, if I have been given good health and resources, why shouldn't I help someone else? I would want them to do the same for me if I needed help which I may well someday. I'm willing to admit that I'm not omniscient.
Besides which by giving people a decent standard of living you enable them to pull for themselves and in turn help other people. When people are debilitated they become a drain on society no matter which way you slice it, because generally speaking they are not willing to just conveniently curl up and die if they can help it.
We buy your products, too. Economically you do need us as badly as we need you and in turn, you are free to use the revenues raised by trade with us in whichever way you choose. Though since NAFTA, these are probably not what they were on other side.
I think I've addressed all points raised now.
What I DO object to is my tax dollars going to subsidize the healthcare of illegals and citizens who are completely capable of working and contributing to society but for whatever reason choose not to and therefore in no way contribute even in the most minimal fashion, to their own healthcare costs. Those two groups of people have never had my sympathy and compassion and never will.
Lori...anytime one citizen subsidizes any costs in the life of another citizen it is welfare. We can debate the varying degrees to which that occurs in the USA, but make no mistake about it...that is the most basic definition of a welfare program.
I am more inclined to approving of the government giving welfare to those that have tried to at least provide for themsleves but have met with difficulty doing so than I am to those who sit back, make absolutely no attempts to provide for themselves at all and expect the government to take care of their every need.
Being from Canada you're not exactly in the midst of socialism central Roslynn so I would think that you would understand that here in America most of us don't cringe in fear at the idea of personal responsibility. We place more emphasis on the individual rights, responsibilities and freedoms than we do the societal ones. That me seem odd to you but it's the way we do it and the way most of us like it. It does not mean we have no compassion for our fellow citizens. It just means that we choose for ourselves to decide who deserves compassion and who does not. We do not eed the government telling us who we should pity enough that we have to pay for their welfare.
One last note.. The American system is knocked frequently and the Canadian system is so often praised but the last time I checked there were very long waiting lists for certain procedures, tests, and specialists in Canada. In the US you can get those things the same week you find out you need them if you can pay for them. There can be no denying the fact that if you can pay for it, the US has the most advanced healthcare system in the world from a medical standpoint.
Canada's public pay system is faltering right now also. There are more and more private hospitals and clinics opening that Canadian citizens are going to and paying for with thier own money.
For those who seek to justify our current health care system by saying "We Americans believe in freedom of choice," I'd like to point out that freedom to choose is not something our current U.S. health care systems provide much of. Our systems mostly confine the power of choice to the hands of the insurer; not doctors and not the patients (i.e. the insured).
Since I know people will respond by saying "People can switch or upgrade their policies if they want to." I'd like to point out that switching or upgrading policies is a choice really only available to the upper classes. The majority of Americans are stuck with whatever their employers offer, or what their strained wallets can afford; which, for the majority of Americans, means they actually have no choice.
As far as the Hillary supporters go I think you better wait until a poll is taken before you can claim to know what she would do. Not to mention hope for a planted question so that she doesn't come off looking ridiculous again.....
Congratulations on being featured.
While you're throwing blame around don't forget to throw some in the direction of the illegals who cost the system billions of dollars each year for the care they get but never pay for.
Don't forget about them Juan.
Bear in mind that they do all that work that Americans don't, or won't, do for easily half the cost of an American worker. Without the illegals, the rich would have to pay higher wages to Americans in order to keep the lawns well manicured, the beds made and have someone serve them wine with dinner. Don't forget that the rich would have to provide benefits if Americans were hired; and that might cost the rich their ability to take an extra European vacation per year or cause them to sell off one of their vacation homes or one of their Lexuses.
We can't have that now, can we?
Idiotic statement made by a person who has NO IDEA what a 'reduction of costs' means . . .
"The huge amount of waiting time in Canada makes any life-threatening illness a virtual death sentence."
Another blatant lie without a reference . . . Of course . . . having no insurance and forcing those with insurance to pay more makes complete sense to these people. No child left behind is paying off!
"Socialized healthcare only works if you have enough worker bees willing to pay the freight for everybody else. "
Any sources for this misinformation? No? What a shocker.
"We Americans believe in freedom of choice,something apparently alien to your Canadian friend."
Choice? Some people don't get to choose whether or not they get insurance. Some jobs don't offer it. IF you do have it . . . you get to choose from what THEY offer . . . yeah, nothing but choices. Like choosing to pay more and get less, leaving millions without coverage instead of covering ALL people for less than current costs. Choice. Whatever.
"I have no problem with some of my tax dollars going to help those who have been productive members of society, holding jobs and paying their own taxes, who happen to suffer from some type of catastrophic illness."
...conveniently forgetting that your insurance premiums cover anyone without insurance too!
"Lori...anytime one citizen subsidizes any costs in the life of another citizen it is welfare."
Like that damned welfare police and fire protection that covers everyone. Gotta' HATE that, eh?
"Being from Canada you're not exactly in the midst of socialism central ...."
WHAT?! Canada IS Socilist . . . they protect their citizen's health.
"...last time I checked there were very long waiting lists for certain procedures, tests, and specialists in Canada."
Last time you checked?? Uh huh.
"In the US you can get those things the same week you find out you need them if you can pay for them."
So millions can avoid the so-called long wait and die instead . . .
"Canada's public pay system is faltering right now also."
I guess you forgot a source for this one. BUT . . . even if true . . . let's look at the other 35 countries then, eh? It's not like there's a shortage of nations doing a better job for less money, now is it?
"A rose by any other name is still a rose-Hillary is a socialist through and through. Once she's in office,she'll pull a time-honored custom-the old bait-and-switch. "
This is as insightful as all your comments. 'nuff said.
"While you're throwing blame around don't forget to throw some in the direction of the illegals who cost the system billions of dollars each year for the care they get but never pay for."
The system? NO, they cost YOU, the person who pays premiums . . . as do the MILLIONS of uninsured and under-insured American citizens.
"...it is constant battle to get his heath care needs paid for and we have private insurance as well as the state suplimental plan."
State? Oh . . .Welfare! Better avoid the GOP, they hate helping citizens and love helping corporations. NOBODY profits from Privatized healthcare BUT medical and Pharmaceutical Corporations. NOBODY.
You're right Linda and my heart goes out to you and so many like you. Some idiots sitting with NO health issues and the pseudo-safety of a health plan have no idea the limits of their expensive coverage . . . and don't care about this country and it's citizens . . . but worry that their happy little bubble-world remains unaffected. This isn't about you . . . or me . . . but what's best for our nation.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
2. I didn't notice (may have missed) a comment on the difference in price for self-pay vs. insurance-pay. I had an emergency a week before an employer health plan kicked in. Instead of the insurance-and-me combined cost being $3,200 (I was able to get this number from the insurer's UCR tables -- hospital and docs would have accepted this ... confirmed by hospital billing people), my charges were $11,000. No negotiation. I had to pay or bankrupt.
Part of EVERY health care proposal MUST be pricing reform.
Part of EVERY health care proposal MUST be address to litigation fairness.
Part of EVERY health care proposal MUST be a jobs impact study -- administrative costs for insurance are astronomical in healthcare. While some of this will be redirected (I hope), there must be a jobs component for impact on the industry.