How sad. Our President is so self assured that he can sway the world like he sways his own citizens. Didn't see the news showing this clip did you? Doesn't that prove that our media is biased and shows us only what they think we need to see.
This video reminds me of Obama's promise for transparency...where is it? It's certainly not in sneaking bills into Congress in the middle of the night and pressuring lawmakers to sign by a certain date. What's the rush, Barry? Shouldn't these things be discussed, debated, and more importantly shared with the public...the people your new changes affect the most?
I'm all for helping families with no healthcare, but I highly doubt that the Government is capable of handling health issues for the nation. Look at the mess they've made of Medicare, Medicaid and the Veteran's Administration. Isn't that proof that they don't have the time, oversight or KNOWLEDGE to involve themselves in business? Yes, these were government operated agencies long before President Obama took office, but still proof that the government has no place in healthcare. By his admission, Medicare is bleeding the government dry. Why...where is the oversight? Expertise? Let's slow down and come up with a plan that really works for everyone.
Sure, the President's speech on healthcare reform sounds compelling, but I for one, don't want my medical needs administered by Congress. Those are the people who will decide the rules governing medical care, and government employees, not necessarily ones with credentials...as evidenced by the Czar appointments,will determine if your condition warrants emergency treatment. Ask people from other countries who utilize Government-run healthcare. I did, and here are a few snippets from their emails back to me:
CANADA: The health care system here has declined a lot from its peak in the 1970s - we now have long waiting lists for necessary procedures. IMO this is because the New Democratic Party which brought in the health care system in 1962 has been periodically replaced by other parties (the Liberals, the Conservatives, and then the Saskatchewan Party, a somewhat revamped version of the Conservatives), who never really favored this system in the first place, and would like to replace it with a U.S.-style pay-as-you-go system.
Also, things have altered a great deal since I was young. Nurses don't do the 'scut work' any more.
England: They don't make beds, or serve meals or bring round cups of tea in the afternoons - that's now done by immigrant workers who don't speak English, so don't bother talking to them, or clutch your chest if you are having a myocardial infarction as they’ll simply wheel the trolley straight over you and keep serving the tea.
5.30 pm. Forget it. The nurses' stations are empty and you won't see another one until the
morning - and as for doctors - blink and you miss them and then it's. 'He'll be in on Tuesday' So much for them being overworked and whatever happens if there's an emergency in the night? I presume someone will react but it's hardly reassuring.
Some anti-cancer drugs have been deemed 'too expensive' to prescribe so cancer patients are being refused, but the other side of this is those patients won't benefit from the drugs anyway as their conditon is too advanced, or the wrong type - but people love to jump on the 'I'm not worth the expense and I've been paying national insurance all my life,' bandwagon.
Australia - We have a choice, sorta. We have Medicare, which is govt run. The levy is compulsory. We also can choose to have private health insurance. However, we still have to pay the compulsory levy for Medicare. Also, these days anyone deemed rich enough to afford private insurance but who chooses not to take it out gets hit with an extra levy.
Another from Australia: Every wage earner has to pay a levy, I think it is up to 2% of your wages now, but it entitles people on welfare to get free medical treatment at doctors and public hospitals. Some doctors will also "bulk bill" their patients for a consultation, that means Medicare will cover the whole visit, even if you work, but most doctors claim against medicare and the patient just pays the difference between the Medicare rebate and what the doctor charges, that is unless you are on welfare as mentioned above, then you get it for free. Pharmaceuticals (prescription medicines prescribed by doctors) are also subsidized by the government. People on welfare get any prescription filled out by the chemist for a couple of dollars, everyone else pays, but not the full price.
Veterans and War widows, are also eligible for Medicare but they often receive other benefits such as free medicine, free hospitalization and a range of other benefits not given to ordinary people on welfare, from the Veteran Affairs department. In Australia if you are over 65 you are eligible for a means tested "old age pension" or if you are disabled an "invalid pension." Many people, including hubby and I will most likely receive a part age pension, which will be topped up by our private pension fund (superannuation), which we of course have paid for out of our wages since we started work.
I'm sure there are positive as well as the negative, but I wanted to make you think about losing your right to choose. President Obama claims we can keep our healthcare benefits to which we currently subscribe, but what employer is going to offer them if given the choice to subscribe to government paid? And where will we get the money? Isn't our national debt high enough?
I'd like to close this post with one comment from a friend who ended her email to me with this statement:
My only complaint about the health care system here is that it needs more government funding to keep it going.
Our country is in dire straights with the highest unemployment rate in decades, a national debt higher than it's ever been, and do we really believe we need to rush healthcare reform through before August 1 when Congress takes a break? I don't think so.