Why I Can't Vote For Obama

The high rate of infant mortality rate in this country is skewed by super preemies (heroic measures used unsuccessfully to save a lot of preemies) and the high rate of super twins (infants born in multiple births are less likely to survive). Also let's not forget the mothers who come from over the border (who most likely did not have prenatal care) to have babies here.

There a lot things wrong with Obama's health plan including employers being penalized for not offering such to their employees. A lot of these businesses are mom and pop stores that can't provide these extras. If they are penalized (and Obama never disclosed how much they will be penalized), these businesses will go under.

Recently, I saw heart-wrenching ads showing people in dire catastrophic medical situations without insurance and they reveal they are forced into bankruptcy. I don't doubt this is the case, but it is not a majority of people. Lots of people take the chance because they don't want to pay for it. Of course, if offered free, they would take it, but they don't want to pay for it out of their own pockets. Like my sister, who is 35, travels the world as a freelance writer. She refuses to go take a blood test because she says it is too costly. This is the same person who wouldn't blink at spending $400 at NOBU (swanky NYC restaurant for people in the know). It's all about priorities.

-most had health insurance that were forced in to bankruptcy...their insurance did not cover their medical bills due to this exclusion or that exclusion and due to the caps insurance companies put on the payout of the policies.

-please provide a LINK to your comment on a penalty on businesses for not joining...ONLY if his plan was a mandatory plan, could this take place....and his plan IS NOT a mandatory plan??

care
 
health care cost has been the number one reason for Bankruptcy filing for years now.

I really wish the facts meant as much as they should mean in these discussions
 
-most had health insurance that were forced in to bankruptcy...their insurance did not cover their medical bills due to this exclusion or that exclusion and due to the caps insurance companies put on the payout of the policies.

-please provide a LINK to your comment on a penalty on businesses for not joining...ONLY if his plan was a mandatory plan, could this take place....and his plan IS NOT a mandatory plan??

care

Obama's plan is mandatory. Obama will not give exact amount as to what the penalty will be, but it is not disputed that there will be a penalty for employers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/politics/27healthcare.html

But the penalty in Massachusetts is picayune compared with what some health experts believe Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, might impose as part of his plan to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. Though Mr. Obama has not released details, economists believe he might require large and medium companies to contribute as much as 6 percent of their payrolls.

That, Mr. Ratner said, would be catastrophic to a low-margin business like his, which has 90 employees, 29 of them full-time workers who are offered health benefits.

“To all of a sudden whack 6 to 7 percent of payroll costs, forget it,” he said. “If they do that, prices go up and employment goes down because nobody can absorb that.”

Writ large, that is one of the significant concerns about Mr. Obama’s health plan, which like this state’s landmark 2006 law would subsidize coverage for the uninsured by taxing employers who do not cover their workers. And it is a primary reason that so-called play-or-pay proposals have had an unsteady history for nearly two decades.
 
As a self-employed American with some health issues, I actually support some drastic changes to our healthcare system. I might even be persuaded to support some form of National Heathcare if it were set up in a way that would help reduce costs, allow more people to have coverage, and still provide the best care in the world.

Obama's healthcare plan is supposedly about fairness. In fact, just about everything Obama talks about involves fairness. Well, life is not always fair, and it really shouldn't be. When it comes to healthcare, fairness in itself will not reduce costs, and that is the biggest problem with our system. Healthcare costs too much. It costs too much for employers and it costs too much for individuals.

So what does Obama want to do about Healthcare? He wants to make it so that insurance companies cannot deny anyone for pre-existing conditions. On the surface, that is wonderful. With such a plan, millions of Americans who cannot get insurance on their own would then become eligible. Here is the problem with that plan. Under Obama's plan, there is no requirement to purchase health insurance. In other words, under Obama's plan, you could wait until you became sick, and then purchase health insurance.

Can you imagine if you could do this with your auto insurance? Let's see, I won't buy insurance until I get into an accident. As soon as I get into an accident, then I'll buy the insurance and the insurance company will have to accept me retroactively. So no one would buy auto insurance, but the insurance companies would have to pay out for everyone who got into an accident. Who would pay for this?

Under Obama's plan, this is what would actually happen. More people would choose to not pay for health insurance. When they became sick, then they would purchase the insurance. So, those who were paying for health insurance would see their premiums soar. Health care costs would skyrocket, and less people would be covered.

This is how Obama thinks, and that should scare every single one of us. This is the reason that I will vote for McCain. I don't like John McCain at all, but Obama's idea of change is change for the worse. Punishing the Republicans for bad past performance is not the answer if it means we will be shooting ourselves in the foot at the same time.

Don't look now but AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE THE BEST HEALTHCARE COVERAGE IN THE WORLD .. NOT EVEN CLOSE

We simply pay the most for healthcare .. which has not gotten us the best healthcare, nor are we all that healthy.

American healthcare is a business .. they only treat symptoms.
 
Don't look now but AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE THE BEST HEALTHCARE COVERAGE IN THE WORLD .. NOT EVEN CLOSE

We simply pay the most for healthcare .. which has not gotten us the best healthcare, nor are we all that healthy.

American healthcare is a business .. they only treat symptoms.

You can bold it all you want, but doesn't mean it is true. Do you know where the world leaders go to when they need medical care? -- Yes, the U.S.
 
You can bold it all you want, but doesn't mean it is true. Do you know where the world leaders go to when they need medical care? -- Yes, the U.S.

you are confusing health care with medical care imo...

*we have the BEST medical care THAT MONEY CAN BUY
 
Last edited:
You can bold it all you want, but doesn't mean it is true. Do you know where the world leaders go to when they need medical care? -- Yes, the U.S.

Many go to Cuba, which has some of the best doctors and advances in medicine on the planet.

I might be fine for "world leaders" who can pay whatever it costs to get healthy .. but facts get in the way of your illusion that we have the best healthcare.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.
PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

There is a shitlod of evidence to back this up .. which I'll gladly post if you need it.
 
Many go to Cuba, which has some of the best doctors and advances in medicine on the planet.

I might be fine for "world leaders" who can pay whatever it costs to get healthy .. but facts get in the way of your illusion that we have the best healthcare.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.
PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

There is a shitlod of evidence to back this up .. which I'll gladly post if you need it.

All of this is true. Americans pay at least double in comparison to those who live in any other industrialized country. While the overall care here is better, the results are not, because there is not enough attention given to preventative medicine. The problem with most plans we see is that they are put together in a very incoherent fashion. In the end, they are unworkable. One thing about all these other countries that pay so much less than us; everyone contributes through taxation. It is not free. While everyone has access to decent healthcare, everyone pays something. Obama's plan does not require this. Therefore, it is not a workable plan. Go ask Hillary.
 
The high rate of infant mortality rate in this country is skewed by super preemies (heroic measures used unsuccessfully to save a lot of preemies) and the high rate of super twins (infants born in multiple births are less likely to survive). Also let's not forget the mothers who come from over the border (who most likely did not have prenatal care) to have babies here.

Lame, you made somthing up to explain why the US lags behind the rest of the world in a primary factor in public health.

There a lot things wrong with Obama's health plan including employers being penalized for not offering such to their employees. A lot of these businesses are mom and pop stores that can't provide these extras.

I thought Obama's plan had a minimum number of employees for manditory coverage? It's was my impression that this is intended to stop large corporations that pay subsistance wages from using Medicaid (and the US Taxpayer) as a primary insurer of their workforce (you know who you are Wal-Mart)


If they are penalized (and Obama never disclosed how much they will be penalized), these businesses will go under.

I would think it would be a "per violation" penalty like payroll taxes where messing up one W-2 is cheep but messing up 10,000 is expensive. There will also probobly be additional penalties for "intentional disregard' of the law.

Recently, I saw heart-wrenching ads showing people in dire catastrophic medical situations without insurance and they reveal they are forced into bankruptcy. I don't doubt this is the case, but it is not a majority of people.

Must not have been that heart-wrenching

And if they are in bankruptcy then the cost of their services is spread to everyone else with insurance.

Lots of people take the chance because they don't want to pay for it. Of course, if offered free, they would take it, but they don't want to pay for it out of their own pockets. Like my sister, who is 35, travels the world as a freelance writer. She refuses to go take a blood test because she says it is too costly. This is the same person who wouldn't blink at spending $400 at NOBU (swanky NYC restaurant for people in the know). It's all about priorities.

This is an argument against universal health care? Sounds like an argument For universal coverage.

If someone decides that a blood test is too expensive because they lack health insurance (even if they could afford the blood test) and it turns out that they have a communicable disease then I say make the gosh darn blood tests free if it prevents my kid from getting hepatitis (or worse). It’s a public health issue at that point.
 

Forum List

Back
Top