Michelle Obama Pushes Health Care Reform

There are now signs of recovery in the China economy with the government’s infrastructure projects beginning to have an impact and as the Purchasing Managers new orders index rebounds. The December PMI rebounded to 41.2, 2.4 percentage points higher than the previous month, which represents the first meaningful rebound since March 2008.

Unemployment on Inauguration Day: 7.2%.

Unemployment today: 9.8%.

Remember when so many had such "hope" for this poor fool? Now only the die-hard dunces and serfs are still on board.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 23, 2009 10:03:46 PM
____________________________________

Unemployment Rate after Bill Clinton's terms: 4.2%

Unemployment Rate after George Bush's terms: 7.2%

Even a top Democrat admits that this Health Care hoax isnt going to save anyone money David Gergen | BIO AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst Massachusetts is often cited as a model of the health reform that Democrats are seeking this year: the law it passed a few years ago has indeed brought universal coverage (only 3 percent of the state’s population is no longer covered) but it has failed to bring down costs, and premiums in Massachusetts are the highest in the country.

Ed, it is just silly to expect the President's children to attend a public school and keep them safe. Public schools tend to be much larger, and thus would require much more secret service, etc. to secure the school. That would end up costing us much more money.

I'm glad our First Lady is sticking up for all Americans on many topics, including health care reform. People shouldn't get charged more or be turned away for pre-existing conditions. People shouldn't go bankrupt because of medical bills when they have health insurance. People shouldn't die (45,000 last year alone) because they couldn't afford health insurance, feared a huge bill so they put off going to the doctor when they were sick until it was too late.
Remember 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', well none of that is possible unless you have the tools to stay healthy. And in this day and age, health insurance is a necessity for good health.

It's ironic that the Left champions tolerance for others, but it's acceptible for them to have their own limitations on tolerance.

***
So financial incentives=intolerance toward those who don't get the incentive?

I just wonder when financial incentives are okay, if ever, and when they're not for you. So no financial incentives because there is a corresponding disincentive and that interferes with liberty and is intolerant? Right? No tax incentives for job creation or small business startups? Because that would discriminate against people who don't create jobs or start up small businesses? No incentives? And you're consistent on that?

Bill Watson,

Maybe I am missing something in your plan? But it appears to me that no one would pay a dime more, much less thousands of dollars more, in order to have a private healthcare plan. Especially since they would have to pay the national sales tax too. So the government plan would end up being the sole provider, which would probably require everyone to pay a 40% sales tax to cover the costs.

I got an idea. How about Michelle makes an executive decision and personally pledges that Obama, herself, and their daughters will go on the Obamacare model- instead of the Presidential Perk plan or the Congressional plan or whatever private plan they had/will-have? But I'll bet much Michelle/Barry's support for public schooling they will opt not. Just as the Obamas send their daughters to an exclusive, expensive, and elitist private school but still extoll and promote public schools for everyone in DC (and elsewhere.) Take the kids out of Sidwell Friends, drop the Presidential healthcare plan, and do as you DO--- not just as you say Barry S.!

The VA format should be used in health care refom.

A two part solution for fixing health care would make reform simple, straight forward, and save hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

A pure public option, with government sales tax funding, replacing insurance, along with distributing all government funded care only through government owned and operated hospitals, staffed by government employed doctors and health care providers, using VA systems, is the best solution for fixing half of the health care problem.

The second half of the solution is to have a pure private option, with private insurance and only private funding, paying for care and medications dispenssed by private providers, that would not be subjected to any government mandates.

Nobody can collect the money to pay for health care as cheaply as the government can through a national sales tax, and nobody can deliver high quality care and medications as cost effectively as the VA.

President Obama commented that “governments unfair advantages” would not be allowed to disrupt private health care’s businesses, however a CBO study to compare all proposed reforms, to a dual public/private plan, would scream that “governmments unfair advantages” offer the only solutions to save lives and prevent bankrupting families, employers, and our country.

Everyone choosing public care could have it no restrictions, no insurance, no co pays, free period.

Employers who select federal public care for their employees would not be required to pay for or have any further involvement with health care.

Gwen Tenn wrote: "...but everything the government does instrusive and somehow infringing on your liberty?"
ABSOLUTELY!

I believe in Capitalism and the Free Market with as little interference from the government (federal, state and local) as possible. Obviously there are safety regulations, anti-discrimination laws and geographic or environmental considerations that are necessary. With greater competition and more options--both in number of insurers and number of plans provided by each insurer--people can shop around for the healthcare plan that best suits their situation. This could include plans that might give some discounts for non-smokers. The difference is that it would not be mandated.

I would prefer that IF the federal goverment is to become another option, that it ONLY provide catastrophic insurance for existing conditions INSTEAD OF forcing the private sector to cover existing conditions.

Now as for obesity, how has someone's obesity ever harmed anyone else? Why must we force people to live a certain way just to fit a particular mold? It's ironic that the Left champions tolerance for others, but it's acceptible for them to have their own limitations on tolerance. Some people are obese due to medical conditions. Some are obese because they may have an underlying emotional or psychological problem. Some are obese because its genetic. And some are obese because they just love to eat. If a person is unhappy being obese, THEY should make the first move and try to get help. If a person is happy being obese, why should we interfere with their lifestyle and self esteem? Again, with all due respect, why is it any anyone else's business? That is what Individual Freedom and self determination is all about!

When it comes to medical insurance for obese patients, I don't believe the government has any business getting involved. And I don't believe obese patients should pay any more than non-obese patients. I personally believe that is discrimination--especially since for many it is NOT a lifestyle but genetic or due to an underlying emotional or psychological problem that is out of their control. Just as it would be discrimination to charge African-Americans more for medical insurance because they are susceptible to cycle cell anemia.

Unemployment on Inauguration Day: 7.2%.

Unemployment today: 9.8%.

Remember when so many had such "hope" for this poor fool? Now only the die-hard dunces and serfs are still on board.

"isn't working well? I guess that is why 85% of Americans are happy with their health care. What planet are these people from?"
____________________________________

Polls show a majority of Americans favor a public option to compete with private insurers. I'm thinking the public option will be in the reforms.

*glow of Inauguration Day has clearly faded*
___________________________________

You'd have to have been a fool to think it wouldn't.

That was an incredible election night and inauguration day. A truly landmark moment for the United States.

There is always a honeymoon period.

An administration inheriting and trying to recover from a world economic crash, plus deal with 2 wars, and so on . .. is bound to have difficult periods.

The great thing is Obama is getting attacked from the far right and the far left - that means he's in the middle and not on any extreme track.

By the way, Obama has proved again and again the pundits and the polls were wrong. Just watch - he's only been in office 9 months.

isn't working well? I guess that is why 85% of Americans are happy with their health care. What planet are these people from?

*glow of Inauguration Day has clearly faded*

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 23, 2009 6:26:12 PM

School funding in my neck of the woods comes from state income tax and sales tax too.

My friends, this is an opportunity of a lifetime to make it right. For the last 100 years, we had been trying to make Health Care for All possible in this great nation of ours. We became a Great Nation not by our wealth alone, but also the process and practices that we put in place. In 19th century, we were no-where. But in next century, thanks to FDR we ensured that we took care of our fallen and poor, we took care of the disabled and hungry and homeless. And then it happened and we became the greatest nation on Earth where everyone on earth wanted to be an American. We did not bring the fall of Soviet Empire by sheer might, but the prospect of a free life beyond the iron curtain helped our cause. We did not make the world come together on 9/11, but the shared prosperity of the Clinton years made others feel really sad for us. We did not bring a coalition of force in 1st Gulf War by handshakes and under-the-table dealings, but the shared threat made all of us to pitch in. Friends, we can still rise to the occasion and make Healthcare a reality.

"And under consideration is mandated healthy lifestyles (or at least hefty penalties if we don't adhere to government guidelines) which further erodes our freedoms

***

I love when conservatives argue that financial incentives for following a healthy lifestyle somehow interfere with their rights to be fat and unhealthy, eat junk food and so on. Humorous.

So you're against all financial incentives, James Danley, because on the flip side they're disincenting someone and interfering with freedom, hence they're "mandates" and mandates are to be avoided?

How do you feel about obesity as a pre-existing condition in the private sector? Or higher insurance rates for smokers? Is anything the private sector does fine and good, but everything the government does intrusive and somehow infringing on your liberty?

"Many executives were driven away by the uncertainty of working for companies closely overseen by Washington."
__________________________________

That is somebody's (slanted) opinion.

Who's to say these people weren't driven away from unsuccessful companies, and moved instead toward companies that had were successful enough to pay back the government money? Or successful on their own.

"her hubby the Man-Child in Chief"
________________________________

More juvenile name calling as right wing intelligent discussion.

Why don't Michelle, her hubby the Man-Child in Chief and TOTUS at least be straight up on the overall real cost of this fiasco they call health care reform. Maybe TOTUS could start by forcing the Man-Child to tell us why they have the reform broken into at least to different bills when added together are well over $1,000,000,000,000! But then again, that would be real honesty, and I believe that TOTUS is the only one of the three that might possibly be honest.