Healthcare reform! What's the truth dammit!?!?

Question

I've heard and read so many different things and can't seem to get the cold hard truth (impossible in politics I know...

but I guess my real question is...

:::Why (as a majority) are the democrats for Obama's healthcare plan and why are the republicans against it?!

give me your honest opinions as a R or a D

Answer 1

Simple answer for you: Obama would like for the US to have a SOCIALIST health care system. I will now show you how this system looks like in other countries.



I come from a country in which we used to have democracy, now socialism has destroyed all the good things that took us years to build up. It is time for the American people to wake up.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_RgM1jHeo

Answer 2

The truth is the proposals so far cost far too much and give the government far too much control over people's lives. Secondly one of the reasons heath insurance and health care cost so much is because the lawyers get a big piece of the action through law suits. The Democrats get major contributions from the lawyers, so they don't want tort reform and liability limits.

On the other side of the issue there is a need to lower the cost of health care and health insurance, because a lot of Americans can't afford it. If someone who doesn't have any insurance has a major medical problem it could ruin them financially. Secondly some of the insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions and even worse, they play games with people's claims.

Bottom line; The present system is flawed, but spending the estimated trillion dollars only to have the government screw it up even more is a bad idea, especially in the middle of a deep recession.

Answer 3

Conservatives (which generally, the Republicans are) believe in trying to make the government smaller, which means getting rid of departments and reducing regulations for business (because business flourishes with fewer restrictions). Liberals believe that the purpose of the government is to serve the people, not business, and that businesses frequently act in ways that are counter to the best interests of the people in general and need to be regulated. They believe that the government is capable of doing certain things better than private businesses can.



These two opposing views of the world are absolutely necessary for our government to run. We have both Capitalist ideals (e.g. the US is the country where with simple effort, you can make it big), and Socialist ideas (Nobody should die of starvation).



I think every different service needs to be viewed in its own light as to whether it is something that the government can do better or that private industry can do better. In the vast majority of cases, private industry can do it better.



We all agree that the government should run the military.



We all agree that the government should not be in the car making business (which is why we want it out of GM as fast as we can possibly get it).



This means that what we're looking for is somewhere in between.



The current health care legislation increases the size of the Federal government and increases the number of regulations (restrictions) put on pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers - which is pretty well guaranteed to make conservatives unhappy.



On the other hand, we have lots of evidence from all of the other industrialized nation that health care works better if it is nationalized. Indeed, it even makes capitalist enterprises such as car manufacturing work better. Why? All three of the big American car manufacturers complained that they were at a competitive disadvantage because their foreign competition didn't have to provide their workers with health care because the government did.



Conservatives are quite right in questioning every new regulation, every new restriction. On the other hand, the idea that no change is better than what's on the table is clearly silly - and destructive.



Yes, I believe we have a lot to learn from industrialized Europe.



Yes, on average, health care is better in Europe and the Pacific rim due to nationalized health care. You can still get the best care in the US ...., but only if you have the money to pay for it. If you can't afford insurance (and an ever-increasing portion of the American population can't), that's no help at all.



Having experienced health care here and abroad, I would genreralize that health care is something that should be nationalized. I generally ignore those who haven't experienced it elsewhere when they talk about all of the things we'd be giving up - simply because they don't know.



The term "socialism" is a scare word in the US, going back to McCarthy and the red scare. Conservatives have used Stalinism as the boogie man to keep people away from socialized paradigms



Although I agree that most things should not be socialized, I disagree with the tactic. Each issue must be examined and argued over. This IS an argument the nation needs to be having, but not by misrepresenting what other nations have for health care and not equating every nationalist system with Stalin.

Answer 4

I am an independent and I truthfully believe that we don't need to reform health care. There are already public options in place for the poor and disabled and everyone could have health insurance if they wanted to pay; anyone can walk into a hospital and get health care. It really isn't broken; we are just hearing about how messed up it is all of the time so it becomes a fact. I do believe that this is just the government's way of trying to control the people more and more and turn us into a socialist nation that will become a global thing under a fascist rule. We are getting closer and closer by the day and I would hate to see my brothers and sisters of the planet wake up one day and wonder how this happened. The ball has continued to roll and this UHC plan will speed it up.



I am what is known as a "conspiracy theorist" and I am anti-globalism so maybe I shouldn't be taken seriously.



One can only believe what they see in front of their eyes...

Answer 5

The issue is HEALTH INSURANCE, not CARE. Basically insurance companies are ripping off the public by failing to insure millions and overcharging those that they do insure. A federally chartered, non-profit, public corporation...call it UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE would solve this problem. Everyone drawing a paycheck would pay in, and everyone would be covered. The HEALTH CARE side of the equation would remain EXACTLY as it is now. In spite of what the right wing radio dummies keep saying there will be NO government hospitals and doctors won't be put on a federal salary. Private insurers spend forty three cents out of every premium dollar on overhead and profit. Medicare spends three cents out of every premium dollar on overhead and zero on profit. Ask anyone on Medicare how it generally works out for them. My bet is that it's generally okay, acceptable and most of the time there's no hassles at all. Could it be improved? You bet. But private insurers are not even close in overall performance and they charge a lot more. Besides, employers are dropping insurance as unaffordable. At best employees will get in the near future is a fixed amount of money on payday to buy their own insurance. Good luck! So Barack's plan overall is to make the insurance companies more truthful and not as crooked. (Check out a gentleman named Wendell Potter on the web...he spent a career doing the dirty work of of Humana and Cigna.) The second part of the plan is to institute a 'public option'....a far less expensive alternative to private insurers. Something like Medicare for anyone who wants to join. And THAT'S the truth!

Answer 6

Read the following link. It provides some honest answer on honest questions from both side.





http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/08/31/f-a-q-everything-youve-wanted-to-know-about-health-care-refor/



In nutshell, Democrats for health care want to expand coverage. Republicans are against for many reason. Which is right? Both liberal and conservative, like ones at the Hertiage Foundation, agree that we pay too much for our medical results. The best way to change that is to increase coverage. Every major industrialized first world country who provide health care for all its citizens have lower costs and the same or better medical outcomes. Each does it differently. The House Bill is trying to do the Swiss way.

Answer 7

The government is proposing a very complicated solution to a problem that could be solved much more easily. The health care bill forces everyone to get health insurance. The bill forces you not to change your policy, if you do you have to take one of the policies offered by the health exhcange (which has to follow specific rules). If you dont have insurance you are taxed an additional 2.5% of your total income.



It adds a bunch of unnecessary rules and services. Also since its government (and judging by history) its going to cost 10X more than what they claim.



The bill is poorly written and sections can have many different interpretations that will certainly requrie lawsuits to deciper. Also the claims for funding and what the plan will accomplish are of the "wishful thinking" type.

Answer 8

wellness care reform needs to be started out first with TORT reforms, end the legal professionals from suing medical doctors and hospitals for billions of dollars utilising frivolous courtroom circumstances. Senator John Edwards accumulated better than $one hundred million suing medical doctors and hospitals over illnesses that have been genetic in nature. it somewhat is often executed via getting a touch low IQ jury and then persuade them that if the generic practitioner or wellness facility had executed this or that it does not have got here approximately. as quickly as you have tort reform we ought to roundup and deport all unlawful immigrants. those human beings bypass our borders enter our hospitals to have toddlers or different high priced remedies and disappear leaving the fees unpaid. The hospitals can no longer handle to pay for to accomplish those centers at no value. coverage companies purely make approximately 2% income yet once you think approximately that their gross receipts are interior the masses of billions 2% is an incredible form of money (hell, i could take it purely as quickly as and no one i know could ever ought to artwork returned) earlier you are able to effectively administration medical expenditures you should end the failings that reason the expenditures to skyrocket. I do help reform, i do no longer help the present plan that congress is working on. everybody that makes below 4 circumstances the poverty point is able to convey at the same time government subsidies to assist pay the value of coverage. $ circumstances the poverty point is $88,000 according to year. who is going to pay for this. the respond is that the familiar tax payer will pay. Congress is making it extra financially sound for the wealthy to tug their money out of the flow and circumvent paying taxes. they are going to nevertheless be wealthy yet will have no income, residing on their wealth, and could pay no taxes. If each and all the wealthy (purely a million% of the inhabitants) did this the government could lose 40% of its income. the alternative could be financial disaster or enhance the taxes on all people else to make up the version. i these days (Aug 2009) had an angioplasty as an out affected person, spent one night interior the wellness facility finished value became approximately $sixty 8,seven-hundred In 1973 I had 2 surgical procedures in 3 weeks, finished value became approximately $5,one hundred and that i spent a finished of 8 days interior the wellness facility. My coverage in 1973 had to pay extraordinarily much $3,six hundred after negotiated savings, in 2009 my coverage payed on $a million,350 after negotiated savings.

Answer 9

Professor Darzi, Chair of surgery at Imperial College London has recently written an article in the Washington Post in defence of Britain's National Health Service.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/08/16/ST2009081602108.html



Unison respond to some of the inaccuracies regarding the NHS made by less credible US Sources.



http://living.aol.co.uk/health/health-fitness-news/union-refutes-us-lies-about-nhs/article/200908141150255809365



http://www.unison.org.uk/file/US_factsheet.pdf



Cancer Research UK respond to some of the blatant inaccuracies spread by some American sources.



http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/17/we-need-to-be-careful-when-comparing-us-and-uk-cancer-care/

Answer 10

The majority are against it because they don't like specifics about the bill. They don't like the cost, don't like the idea of using thei rtax dollars to pay for healthcare for illegals, don't like some of the agendas in many of the bills like taxpayer funded abortions, healthcare rationing, lower quality of care etc. Many people who have healthcare through their employers don't like it because employers are basically going to be forced into providing employers with Obamacare and if not forced then the independent insurance companies probably won't be able to compete cost wise and so employers will opt for the government plan to cut costs. That's one of the main reasons I don't want it. Right now I've got Anthem, it's accepted everywhere, easy to work with, etc. Our company has it's eyes on the government plan because it would be cheaper for them they figure and from what I've seen of the healthcare bill proposals it will be a much bigger invasion of privacy, much less control over my own care on my end and, unless doctors are forced into taking it, there's a good chance that my doctors won't accept it. They don't accept medicaid right now either because it's too much hassle and too little money to be worth it to them.



Supporters are looking at because it covers the uninsured, which right now is mostly illegal immigrants and those who don't want to budget for healthcare. Liberals want government to be in control of basically every aspect of our lifes (that's truth, not just me being mean) they'll get considerably more government control over healthcare with this bill. So it appeals to them that way. They feel like the cost to us, our children, and our grandchildren is worth it. And it's about pandering to their liberal base. I'm sure to that some are idealogues who buy into the exagerrated sob stories pushed by the left and who are indoctrinated into believing that overhaul is are only option.

Answer 11

The repubs are so against it because they hate changing the status quo. That being, big pharma and the insurance companies are probably their highest campaign supporters. They do what those companies want them to do when it comes down to the nitty gritty. They own the GOP. That's it in a nut shell.



The dems are for it basically because their platform is to help out the less fortunate and the middle class in this country. There are too many people getting burned by the insurance companies. Those companies have a hand in why so many have gone bankrupt and why so many cannot afford insurance. They get sick and the rest of us pay because they can't. Ever wonder why a tylenol is $5.00 in the hospital? It's because so many who get sick wait until they are desperate and then go to the ER. They can't pay their bill and the hospital can't turn them away. We end up paying the bill in one way or another. I am a business owner and know first hand how much it costs to offer insurance to my employees. Some can't afford to offer it anymore, and their employees can't afford to get it on their own. Then there are those who have lost their jobs in this economy. Do you know how hard it is to replace that income, let alone find a job where you can get bennies? In this job market, near impossible.

That's why the dems are for reform. That's why I am too.

Answer 12

The truth is that this bill will bring balance back to the healthcare system. It will bring competition to the market in the form of a public option.



The dems are for it because they see how bad the healthcare system in now. Republicans are against it because they hate government involvement in anything that isn't profitable for the rich, or popular with christian fundamentalists.

Answer 13

Republicans are against it because it means that the government will end up taking over health care 100%.



1 - Everything the government takes over, it destroys (social security, public schools, etc.).



2 - The government should not have this much power. When they are paying for your health care, they will find ways to control every aspect of your life - at least through taxes. Want a donut? Pay the donut tax. Want a soda pop? Pay the soda tax. Want to ski or engage in other dangerous hobbies? Pay a tax.



3 - What happens when the government believes in a health care regimine for you, but you don't? What if they say, "Take this pill or lose your coverage!"? What if they force your child to take a pill, get a shot, or have surgery that you don't think is right?



4 - Look at every other country that has socialized medicine. The wait is long, the service is poor, and they let people die instead of spending a lot of money on them. YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE. You can sue your insurance company to force them to cover your condition. You can never win against the government, and you probably won't even get the chance to fight.



.



.

Answer 14

Who cares why they support it or not.



Do you (and I mean you personally) think the government should tax one person to pay for someone else's needs (health care, food, housing, retirement)? If so how far should they go? Where does the government get is power to do that? I don't thing the government has that right. The government gets it's power from the people. I do not have the right to take from one and give to an other, therefore I can't give the government that power.

Answer 15

Republicans are in favor of individual freedom from government intrusion in our lives. Democrats are in favor of more government regulation and control of our lives. Republicans favor Capitalist ideas and Democrats favor Scoialist ideas. This is what is driving the Healthcare Debate.

Answer 16

Do you want your grandchildren to pay for your health care or do you believe this should be something you work out for yourself?

Any health care bill ran by the government will result in higher taxes from somewhere. They may not call it by name but you will feel it in your paycheck, you know, the one you take home to feed and shelter your kids with.

It is not the place of the government to provide only to protect.(And you see how that's going)

Answer 17

Your first mistake is thinking all democrats are for the bill HR3200, it was the so called blue dog democrats that stopped that bill short, and I think almost every one will agree health care needs overhaul, just what kind?

Answer 18

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.



Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look -- I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)



Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!



Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!



For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.



Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)



Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."



Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.



(7) National health care will reduce costs.



This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.



The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil.



As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.



You may recall this era as "the Carter years."



Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.



You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."



Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.



(8) National health care won't cover abortions.



There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.



I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:



Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)



These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-re

Answer 19

Affordable quality health care for all Americans is the goal.



If you look up lobbying donations for both Republicans and Democrats, you will discover huge contributions from insurance lobbyists, pharmaceutical lobbyists (who outnumber our elected representatives in Washington 4.5 to 1, according to Rossi/2005), health care lobbyists (overbillers and double-billing institutions included), and all the unrelated industries (banks, Wall Street, big oil interests, etc.) that the Obama administration is attempting to re-regulate so that another meltdown cannot occur in the future and so that the 1300 for-profit insurance companies that operate in the U.S. will have to be fair to their consumers. These are some very HUGE babies used to have HUGE lollypops WITHOUT RESTRICTION for the past eight years of lawlessness and greed-driven decision-making, so taking candy away from these fatcat spoiled brat CEOs is likely to cause a mighty big ruckus, as any mom can tell you.



There are about 50 million Americans uninsured, many of whom resort to the Emergency Room as though it is a clinic---and the hospital administrators pass the costs on down to the insurers for other patients, who then charge more premiums while simultaneously cutting services in order to preserve their CEO multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses (example: William McGuire with UnitedHealth Group was paid $124.8 MILLION for ONE YEAR in 2005, and a guaranteed 5-year salary of $342 MILLION!---and also the bonuses, of course). Yet these companies charge co-pays to consumers, spend between $20 billion and $60 billion each year for middle-men whose jobs are to find ways of denying claims, refuse to cover you if you have a pre-existing condition, and drop your coverage if you become ill or injured even though your premiums have been paid regularly. Obviously, oversight and reforms are desperately needed for this out-of-control industry. Those controls are included in the health care reform proposals currently being considered in the House and Senate. Make your voice known if you agree that reforms are necessary.



No federal funding is to be used for abortions in any of the bills being proposed---this is one of the things the paid and scripted disupters of the Town Hall meetings in Democrats' districts are trying to misrepresent or lie about.



Prevention is a large part of each proposal, cutting costs by focusing on early intervention and help avoiding illnesses like diabetes through healthy eating, exercise, etc. Modernizing records (using computers and training medical professionals on the use of these computerized records) will eliminate costly errors and simplify communications between specialists or other health professionals, and the doctors will have more actual time with patients instead of stuck doing mountains of paperwork (this got a standing ovation at the AMA--a lobbying group for medical professionals---when President Obama cited it as a goal).



Republicans who aren't in lobbyists' pockets are afraid of helping President Obama succeed--scared of making their conservative base angry for the mid-term elections and maybe losing their seats in either the Senate or the House. Some of the ones who might want to help are being heavily pressured by the more extremist wing of their party to block everything, no matter how much good it might do for the U.S. and its citizens, which I think is just plain sad. My personal opinion is that if Republicans are brave enough to defy these extremists and do what is in the best interests of their constituents and our nation as a whole (and reform IS essential to our economic recovery), then Democrats should be willing to help these Republicans in their home districts...campaign on their behalf, help with fundraising if they end up antagonizing the health care lobbyists by backing re-regulation...and us Democrats out here should support them for their courage...or so I believe. What ever happened to united we stand, divided we fall mentalities? Or "one nation ... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? The health care reform is an attempt to provide affordable health care to every single American citizen and to do so in ways that are fair and just. I personally vote YES, and say it is about time we make these insurance companies be fair!

Answer 20

For the very reason you stated - - - There is no final version of the bill (4 or 5 are still in play) - - very few voting on it have read it - - and the ones who have read it said they "need a lawyer to figure it out". Bottom line: It's too costly, too risky, too lengthy, too complicated, and too socialist for my liking.

Independent and proud of it.

Answer 21

Tax and Spend-that was splendid! If I were a Dem, I'd vote twice on a thumbs up!

Answer 22

Read. The. Bill.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

Answer 23

I'm right of center

The congress has so many different bills in the pipeline they are certainly confused, Obama has not been specific about what he is asking congress for so how can we not be confused

Answer 24

First of all, let me recommend that you search either CSPAN or youtube for Steny Hoyer's town hall meeting this week and watch it. He gave the clearest descriptions and explanations that I have heard yet, and he addressed what IS in the bill and what IS NOT.



I believe that a majority of the people who are against health care reform either (a) are confused about what it really does (the health insurance companies have been spending $1.5 million PER DAY to confuse all of us) or (b) just hate anything Obama does.



All of us would benefit from health care reform, as the insurance system is broken and we and companies are paying more and more for less and less coverage. Obama wants premiums to go down, everyone to be covered and regulations put on the private companies so they can't drop people when they get sick, refuse them coverage for pre-existing conditions or force families into bankruptcy. Most of the arguments against health care reform are 100% inaccurate. There are NO "death panels," there will be NO rationing, the government will NOT "take over health care," the plan does NOT cover illegal immigrants, there is NO funding for abortion, etc., yet we keep hearing these statements day after day, especially on this site.



Health care reform is needed because the spiraling costs are dragging down our economy and making it difficult for big and small businesses to offer health insurance to their (working) employees. It is cutting into their profits. Meanwhile health ins. companies are making record profits.



Health care reform is needed because of the 17,000 families that are going into bankruptcy EACH WEEK, the vast majority of them WERE insured but when a catastrophic illness occurred, their insurer either dropped them or refused to pay for many of the needed treatments.



Health care reform is needed because we cannot get our economy back on a strong footing until the health insurance companies get some competition that forces them to cut their excessive profits and their multi-million dollar executive bonuses and actually insure people who have pre-existing conditions and who have the nerve to get sick. Competition is good, right?



And health care reform is needed because all of us who have insurance now are paying for those who don't, and they are getting the most expensive form of health care at the emergency room. With a public option, costs will go down because there will be group bargaining power.



The security you get from health insurance reform:



* No discrimination for pre-existing conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

* No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

* No cost-sharing for preventive care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

* No dropping of coverage for seriously ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

* No gender discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

* No annual or lifetime caps on coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

* Extended coverage for young adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

* Guaranteed insurance renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Answer 25

Republicans are against it because then they will no longer be the elite, the only ones with access to decent health care.



Okay, that sounded a bit trollish. The truth is, nobody knows why the Repubs are against it. They probably have some kind of personal incentive. Why else would they want to block fellow Americans from access to affordable coverage? I just don't get it.

Answer 26

sorry, but this is the worst place to get the truth. please find out the facts for yourself. do not trust biased (R or D) sites.

Answer 27

You've come to the wrong place if you want to find "unbiased truth" in Yahoo Answers!

Answer 28

DON'T BELIEVE CHAIN EMAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





There's a lot of junk being forwarded by chain email (one email, forwarded to another, then another) making all kinds of ridiculous and stupid claims about healthcare. Don't believe any of those things.

Answer 29

I'll try to consolidate the facts in one sentence.



It's some ol' bullsh*t