President Obama blunders:

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by eric/, Apr 5, 2012.

  1. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #1
    Link

    Aside from this not being extraordinary at all, as the article suggests, there are a few interesting tidbits that need to be pointed out:

    Now this is not something unique to the Democrats or anything. I'm just pointing out that both sides play politics.

    And before anybody asks and all the ad hom starts:
    I prefer that the USG just amend the Constitution and give everybody health care like Europe. I don't support any bill in which citizens have to pay an additional tax or be compelled to purchase a service. If you're going to do UHC, do it once and do it right, or don't do it.
     
  2. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #2
    I'm more concerned with tidbits such as this:

    WSJ
    This from, ahem, someone who taught constitutional law?
     
  3. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #3
    So is this a thread on the constitutionality of universal health care or the equal power of the judicial branch in the US.
     
  4. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    Good question. If the former, we have a thread for it, making this one useless. If the latter, then let's talk about the checks and balances that the SCOTUS has, and how some of those checks and balances may or may not have been applied correctly. But the OP naming the thread 'President Obama blunders:' is a bad title at the least, a tiny bit baiting at the most.

    BL.
     
  5. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #5
    The objective has been achieved. ;)
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6
    Tell that to the republicans, who see UHC as a socialist trip to Hell.

    Let me know when they're up for it.
     
  7. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #7
    I'm not sure where the blunder is. The supreme court rarely turns down laws enacted by congress. Was Obama wrong to point that out?
     
  8. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #8
    He was certainly wrong to say it's unprecedented. Marbury v Madison was in 1803.
     
  9. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #9
    They won't be. They're too busy nosing in womens' vaginas and grown adults bedrooms.
     
  10. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #10
    Marbury v. Madison did not overturn an act of congress, it invalidated one provision of an act of congress. AHCA really is an unusual case as the complaints have been specifically directed at the legitimacy of the act itself. In other words, complainants are attempting direct legislative opposition through the court system, which may in fact be unprecedented.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Let's be clear on one thing- the health care law we got is NOT universal health care. The law we got was a health insurance mandate. UHC would definitely be constitutional.
     
  12. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #12
    Nicely stated.

    Although I do wish we got a proper healthcare reform instead of the junk that was passed.
     
  13. eric/, Apr 5, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2012

    eric/ thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    No. My intention was to show how President Obama is attempting to convey a message that is not true.

    ----------

    It's not really baiting. I'm apolitical, as those of you who have debated with me at all may already know.

    The point was that he did blunder. He made statements that were untrue, attempted to backtrack, and gave false impressions during his speech.

    The point of the thread is to make people aware of this, and for general discussion regarding his recent actions.

    For example:

    President Obama state that the law was passed with "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

    However, critical thinking will show us that:

    The law passed a House with a huge Democrat majority at the time by only 219-212. It did not get a single Republican vote, but the opposition was bipartisan.

    Whether or not you are ideologically opposed to this bill isn't the central issue here. Pointing out when a politician is attempting to swindle people is the issue.

    For President Obama this is rather uncharacteristic. I can't think of any other time from memory where he's blatantly messed up in such a fashion.
     
  14. /user/me macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #14
    It would also mess up the healthcare system we have now. We need to go after HMOs and insurance companies who make obscene profits, not targeting the hospitals and health care workers.

    For example, nurses in the UK, which has UHC, only make 30-40k, and only 60k once they have a master's degree and a specialization.

    http://www.21stcenturynurse.com/UKSalary.htm
     
  15. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #15


    I really couldn't believe he would say such a ludicrous statement. He specifically emphasized that the members of the SCOTUS were unelected and Congress was elected, as if it mattered. It's like a basketball coach arguing with a referee that he has no right to tell a basketball player what to do; and that only someone paid to play basketball should decide what a basketball player can and can't do.

    It's such a basic principle of our government and Constitution that the SCOTUS exists to provides checks on the legislative and executive branches of government. I had already lost all confidence in the guy, now I even question his morality. If he's willing to tell a bold face lie (I don't believe that Obama believes what he said in the slightest), turning a basic tenet of our government and Constitution on its head, just for political expediency, what won't he do?
     
  16. leekohler, Apr 5, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2012

    leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Who says our system has to be the same as the UK's? There are plenty of good UHC systems out there where people make plenty of money. Our system, quite frankly, does not work at all.
     
  17. /user/me macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #17
    Our system is broken absolutely, but the effect of UHC reducing healthcare workers' wages isn't a phenomenon that is unique to the UK. Across the board - even in the US, once healthcare workers are paid by the government, their salaries go down. What needs to change is how HMOs and insurance companies are taxed and regulated.
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    Insurance companies exist to make a profit. As long as that is the case, we will never get adequate care. What you suggest still does not even address the cost issues involved.

    BTW- I've looked on line, but I can find nothing that shows that UHC employees in other countries make little money.
     
  19. /user/me macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #19
    Which is why the insurance companies and HMOs need to be restructured and possibly dismantled, but then our health care is in the hands of the government, and that's a scary idea in itself.

    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
    -Ronald Reagan

    While I disagree with basically everything the Republican party stands for, there is some truth to this quote.

    http://www.worldsalaries.org/professionalnurse.shtml

    Check that site out... You're not going to get anything by searching UHC and reduced healthcare income.. you have to know what countries have UHC and look at their average salary compared to the US. Across the board, all the countries that have UHC, nurses make significantly less.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    In some cases, yes that quote is true. However, other countries have proven that UHC is a far more effective method for keeping their populations healthy. The proof is in the numbers. Why do you think we can't do it, when every other modern society can?

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/globalhealth/july-dec09/insurance_1006.html

    We spend a lot and get a lot less.
     
  21. /user/me macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #21
    I never wanted to claim that I'd be in the poor house, much less not making enough money - just saying that in virtually all cases, the nurses in UHC countries make only a percentage of what nurses make here. That said, it's all averaged out, which skews results because some make way less and some make way more, which isn't shown in the data.

    One thing that UHC does, is that it tries to lessen that wage disparity, but it's still entrusting our medical care to the government, which would rather bomb foreign countries than pay for organ transplants.

    If we were to get a UHC plan that worked in this country, we would need to model the UHC system that people want in this country around a country that has an already efficient system. Most of the time, the countries with efficient systems aren't spending nearly as much on military spending, which enables them to focus more on public welfare.

    Basically the problem comes down to government spending - the more money that the government can allocate towards healthcare, the greater the quality of care.

    I've read that article, and like it very much. Comparing to Canada, which I'm only doing because they're the closest to us, so they have the most similar culture, health concerns, diet, ect, the main problem that they have with UHC is that their healthcare system has turned into a bureaucracy. That means that wait times are greatly increased for simple medical procedures. As soon as the UHC plan can avoid a set up like Canada's, the sooner that I'll be behind it.
     
  22. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #22
    You won't hit a moving target by aiming at its current location...

    Purdue University is already working on robotic nurses to assist surgeons. In the not-so-distant future, our capitalist system will invent the robot replacements for most nurses and doctors and most of the (human) jobs in the health care industry will be lower-paying jobs performing routine maintenance on the robots.

    Read more about this at in the article Don’t Worry About Deficit That Will Heal Itself from bloomberg.com.

     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    I certainly have no problems with reducing our military adventures.
     
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #24
    I'm wondering how much the wait times actually matter in Canada compared to the United States.

    One study noted that the wait time for cardiovascular treatments in Canada and the UK were significantly longer than the United States and other studies seem to indicate similar, but considering that Canada has lower rates of mortality, I'm not sure how significant this is.

    Moreover, the Canadian system is managed per province, giving some variation that isn't readily addressed.
     
  25. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #25
    Seems to me irrational fear of UHC is the biggest problem. Who says corporations are any more efficient at providing services or even suitable for all services? The driver of corporate strategy is based on profitability. Between the HMOs and insurance companies it should be no surprise that costs are high and they deny coverage whenever possible. It should be clear to anyone but the most intransigent social Darwinist that the current policy is a path to disaster.

    Furthermore, I teach medics in the UK. Yes, their salary is lower than their colleagues in the US but then again, UK physicians are well paid and don't have to carry the absurd insurance/overhead that is necessary in the US. In the end, the overhead introduced by profitability of corporate health care and insurance industries likely vastly exceeds the actual cost of healthcare. Thus the cost of healthcare would likely be many times less under a UHC system. Think for yourself and even though the squeals and gasps of "socialism!!!" seem alarming, you'll soon realize it is nothing more than irrational fear.
     

Share This Page