Obama Promotes Health Care Plan in Northern Virginia

President Obama says this is the time to address the nation's health care needs.

[AccountabilityPl ease]

This was NOT a townhall meeting. The audience and the questions were prescreened at this meeting. There were NO challengers at this meeting. Did you see all of the people behind Barack adoring him while snapping his picture? They clearly weren't there for a debate, but a lovefest. This is just yet another example of the lack of transparency we were promised on the campaign trail. Let's have a SERIOUS debate on healthcare instead of this fixed propaganda.

[Disillusioned]

"Obama told his critics that he understands that they may have concerns but says they shouldn't reject his healthcare plan unless they have one of their own to offer."

Nobody can create a health reform bill that is financially sound in this short amount of time. Obama does not care about the long term consequences, only about meeting his personal agenda. He has (with the challenging statement above) turned this into a negative for anyone who dares question the plans validity. Again, blaming the naysayers and making opponents to his plan the bad guys and road blocks to better life for all (because Republicans and conservative Democrats MUST be cold hearted bigots). This is psychological game playing that has gotten him elected and gotten his bills into law thus far. Well, that and the strong arm politics to get his support through promises and favors.

Propaganda and corruption. Lovely combination.

[April]

If President Obama wants to have a townhall meeting, why not book a venue, and let the public walk in without any screening other than the strictest of security? If he wants to legitimately answer citzen's concerns, he should have no knowledge of questions before the event. I have health insurance, but the premiums are very burdensome with a huge deductible. My employer provides some money toward the premium, but the major portion falls on the employees. I would really love to see a government program that allows me to keep my current coverage, reduces my premiums, gives me security that my deductible will be lowered so as not to throw my family into near financial ruin, AND, will cover all others who do not have any health insurance. I think it should be obvious to any reasonable person, that this is going to cost lots of money. Do we honestly believe this country has the kind of money it will take to implement national healthcare and sustain it in a financially viable condition through generations? If President can tell me in plain language, without trying to be evasive, where he sees these funds coming from, then I am certainly willing to listen.

[same ol same ol]

barrak hussain propaganda, we have a great health care and health insurance system in place, leave it alone.

[hsr0601]

The independently-funded healthcare policy research organization, The Commonwealth Fund, compared possible savings 'a health insurance exchange' could bring under three different scenarios. One would include a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance. Another would instead offer only a government-run plan with rates somewhat higher than Medicare. The final one would be private insurance with no government plan at all.
Commonwealth's study found cumulative health system savings between 2010 and 2020, compared with projected trends for that period, would range from $3.0 trillion under a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance paying providers at Medicare rates in competition with private plans, to $2.0 trillion for a public plan paying providers at rates between Medicare and private plan rates, to $1.2 trillion in the private plan-only scenario. All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012.'Such an exchange' would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans.

Under the Medicare-like plan along with private insurance, all U.S. residents would be required to obtain health coverage. The plan would establish a new government-sponsored health program for people younger than age 65 who are not eligible for Medicare. More than 40 million people would be expected to enroll in the program, according to Cathy Schoen of the Commonwealth Fund.

The government-operated insurance exchange would be similar to an existing program in Massachusetts and would allow people to compare coverage offered by private insurers and the new public program. In addition, the plan supports wide adoption of health information technology, better disease prevention efforts and 'changes to the insurance payment system' that promote efficiency. Health spending would continue to increase under the plan, but at a slower rate than current projections over the next 10 years. The Commonwealth Fund said the plan would reduce annual health care spending growth from a projected 6.7% to 5.5% and save a cumulative total of about '$3 trillion' by 2020, adding a national health insurance exchange program that includes a federally managed health insurance option could potentially save $1.8 trillion more than a plan consisting only of private plans.
The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers. Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said.

The proposal's advocates have argued that a government-sponsored insurance plan would offer the 46 million uninsured Americans an affordable alternative to costly private insurance, adding that It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to strealine, innovate and compete.

[Moonglow]

Has Obama ever spent one full day in the oval office since taking office? I believe a PR Director was elected instead of a President!

[Chris]

Adam, this sounds like a Kool-aid induced happy-gram. Are you kidding? Obama said this, Obama said that....He also said that he would not tax contributions to existing health care plans and chastised McCain for suggesting it...oops. And, Obama said that he did not believe in mandated enrollment and chastised Clinton for saying that that was the only way to pay for a plan....oops!
Adam, what Obama says and what he does are often dramatically different. News flash...Obama lies, Adam. Report that!

[Chris]

Hsr0601, should check those facts and those numbers against the CBO figures and the actual proposal that Obama is hawking.

[April]

Chris wrote:

Hsr0601, should check those facts and those numbers against the CBO figures and the actual proposal that Obama is hawking.

How financially sound is the Massachusetts program?

[Wise Guy]

People in the USA put him in there and we all got to take what he puts on us all until we all have had enough and get him out of there. This is the AMERICA way. Hold on tight because it's only going to get worst.

[cvillemom]

Obama got on TV saying we should look to the Mayo Clinic model...except that he forgot to mention that the Mayo is near bankruptcy. Whoops! And, oh by the way, Mayo doesn't do much in the way of primary care for the locals. They are all about specialists treating visitors who either prescreened to be certain they have insurance or pay cash.
Chris you are right. On the campaign trail he told us about all the things we SHOULDN'T do as part of a new health system, and now those are the exact things he wants to shove down our throats. That's because he doesn't have a plan, and he never did!
This man has not even run a successful lemonade stand in the past, and now he wants us to sign onto something ASAP without looking at the details, something that will have far-reaching effects long into the future. He tries to use scare tactics - the sky will fall if we don't adopt his plan - to try to get us to buy into this. What is the hurry? We saw the same thing with the stimulus - don't bother looking at the details, just sign on, or else! I am one person who doesn't like to be bullied!

[health care worker]

cvillemom,

What do you mean "whats the hurry"

Many of our representatives have been working on fixing health care since the 90's (actually the 70's, but i don't remember much about that). Its not exactly a new thing that we need to sit around and study for a few more years.

The insurance companies have had plenty of TIME to lower costs, like they have been promising to do since the 70's when they first blocked national health care. They failed because all they care about is making money, not people's health (thats how the free market works, and that works well for MOST industries). The Bush administration had eight years and did nothing. The system is broken, causing foreclosures and bankruptcy left and right, and is getting exponentially worse as our population ages. Any major reforms are going to take years to fully implement. This should have been dealt with YEARS AGO. THAT IS THE HURRY.

[April]

health care worker wrote:

cvillemom,
What do you mean "whats the hurry"
Many of our representatives have been working on fixing health care since the 90's (actually the 70's, but i don't remember much about that). Its not exactly a new thing that we need to sit around and study for a few more years.
The insurance companies have had plenty of TIME to lower costs, like they have been promising to do since the 70's when they first blocked national health care. They failed because all they care about is making money, not people's health (thats how the free market works, and that works well for MOST industries). The Bush administration had eight years and did nothing. The system is broken, causing foreclosures and bankruptcy left and right, and is getting exponentially worse as our population ages. Any major reforms are going to take years to fully implement. This should have been dealt with YEARS AGO. THAT IS THE HURRY.

So, are you saying there should be no concern about the details of this plan or the related costs because other plans have failed to be enacted in the past? I totally disagree. The American public deserves, and has a right to expect each of our elected officials to be fully informed about any piece of legislation coming up for a vote, and most certainly about an issue as important as healthcare.

[Chris]

President Bush spent the time that he didn't spend keeping us free from terrorist attacks from 2001-08 on Medicare, for one. He was blocked every step of the way by politicians who were too afraid to be fiscally responsible and here is the big one...decisive: lest they lose their seat over it.
Medicare, if fixed, would save the government enough to have a dime to spend, if it wanted to attempt some health care legislation. We are OUT OF MONEY and yet, we are still spending. Obama is not decisive, he is reckless. Reckless is adding to the responsibility of someone or something, when it is failing at what you gave it last week or last year. He wouldn't do it with the First princesses, but with our country, it's ok!(April, your last post is right on target!)

[health care worker]

April,

like i said before, some of our more responsible representatives have been working on health care for years, and the current bills being drafted are getting a lot of time and attention. It really makes no sense that you are accusing health care reform of being rushed. Nothing has even been voted on yet. Of course they are working on the details-- so it seems as though because you don't like how something is going, and you don't have an alternative to offer, your just going to cry "its rushed its rushed!" when there isn't even an upcoming vote. If finally getting some meaningful health care reform passed this year is "rushed", then you need to get over it.

[health care worker]

Chris,

your explanation for Bush's complete failure is that he was too busy protecting us from terrorists?(save for one BIG exception, of course). Thank you for exposing yourself fully for being a total wacko so that i can now skip over your posts, or save them for when i need a good laugh.

[Ray]

health care worker wrote:

April,
like i said before, some of our more responsible representatives have been working on health care for years, and the current bills being drafted are getting a lot of time and attention. It really makes no sense that you are accusing health care reform of being rushed. Nothing has even been voted on yet. Of course they are working on the details-- so it seems as though because you don't like how something is going, and you don't have an alternative to offer, your just going to cry "its rushed its rushed!" when there isn't even an upcoming vote. If finally getting some meaningful health care reform passed this year is "rushed", then you need to get over it.

I don't recall that I used the word "rushed." In an earlier post I expressed my desire for more affordable healthcare. I certainly don't enjoy paying almost two week's salary in insurance premiums, and I am concerned for the uninsured. I did question whether as a country we have the resources to pay for such a program. A very important question I think as the discussion continues. I do not think the American public should be expected to sit back, and just keep quiet, or accept answers in participant controlled townhalls. And yes, I know both the Democrats and Republicans like to appear before sympathetic, supportive audiences for such events.

[April]

to health care worker-Sorry, didn't realize my husband had commented on another topic under his name, Ray.

[health care worker]

no, i'm the one who should be sorry...It was cville mom who kept talking about being rushed, not you! I agree health care reform will cost a lot of money, but as long as we continue to have the policy that if you go to an ER you will be taken care of, we are going to pay those bills anyway...so we might as well try to do it in a way that makes sense and keeps costs down in the long term.

We spend twice as much money per person on health care in this country as other industrialized countries, and we are the only one without universal health care. I realize there is a lot to debate, but healthcare reform could be a LOT less expensive than doing nothing.