The presentations and explanations are vague for at least one of two reasons: one - Obama does not know the answers for the multitudinous details being jammed in there as political favors, or 2. Obama does know what is being jammed in there as political favor, but does not want us to know.

One issue is abortion. Many ppl have asked whether the eventual plan will cover abortion, and the least vague answers seem to indicate "yes." Therefore, each and every citizen paying taxes will have tax money go to insurance coverage for abortions. Along with making us plain old tax payers be complicit in the killing of the least powerful amongst us, it does not make sense to cover abortion by insurance. Insurance is supposed to cover rare but expensive events. When a bunch of people sell their financial risk to the insurer, everyone benefits. But if the event is a fairly common event and not too expensive, then the insurance cost ends up being right around the cost it would require from each person anyway. Like eye glasses insurance. Many of us will need an eye exam and a new prescription every couple of years. If you do the math, what is covered by the eye glass/eye exam policy, when offered, is exactly what I have been paying out-of-pocket in the long run for eye exam and glasses. So, eye glass "insurance" ends up working out as a savings plan, not as insurance: you give the insurance company your 10 bucks a month, and get $200 benefit every 2 years. Same with abortion. Approx one in six pregnancies ends up in a voluntary abortion, at the cost of approx $500. This procedure is neither rare nor expensive. The reason that there is a sneaky effort to cover abortion can only boil down to political favors between Obama and his pro-choice backers.

At the current rate of abortion, with Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute figures of well over a million abortions per year, if the govt pays for half of these, that would be half a million times $500. That is $250 million per year, performed with the tax dollars of a public that, by any of the polls out there, generally does not favor abortion, and largely does not favor govt-funded abortion.

On July 9, Orrin Hatch tried to get a straight answer from Sen Mikulski (edited for length-you can google some of the quotes to find full coverage):
Mikulski:
"It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services, and under the definition of a women's health clinic it would include Planned Parenthood clinics. It does not in any way expand a service. In other words, it doesn't expand, nor mandate an abortion service."

Hatch: "No, but it would provide for them."

Mikulski: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate."

["Medically appropriate" is even more vague and inclusive than the old "health of the mother" reason, which includes any possibility of any level of psychological distress.]

Hatch: "Madame Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in that says, 'Not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support."

Mikulski: "No, I would not be willing to do that at this time."

---So, in my eyes, political favors and political agenda, specifically the president's undying commitment to the abortion issue, will kill this twice-in-a-lifetime opportunity (the Clintons blew it, too) at health care reform.

Barack Obama will never -I repeat NEVER- say to your face what he actually plans to do or achieve with these huge new government programs.... like bankrupt the private health insurance industry. Everything's rolled-out in a trojan horse, and you're not allowed to look inside or ask any questions. Suffice to say, good-faith disclosure is simply not how this crew operates.

Rather, you get some calculating and specious oratory with styrofoam props to wow the plebes, like the tacky Greek columns in Denver. To him, the revolutionary ends justify the Alinskyite means- so the Dear Leader just tells you whatever he needs to, he knows what’s best for you anyway.

And the truth is that Obama is out to nationalize health care.. they’ll be no private insurance industry left after five years of Obamacare… but of course he’s lying about it.

As for the American public, the reality that Obama is dishonest and out-of-control seems to finally be setting-in; the poll numbers are now headed steadily south- is he already facing his Waterloo on this legislation?

Looks like it from where I'm standing...

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

Unfortunately it is going to be really hard to pass and fund health care reform if you don't first put a whole lot of systems in place to improve the whole health care system and make it accountable!! As long as we have the ridiculous degree of overtreatment in all medical specialties that exists right now as well as other incentives throughout our culture to live unhealthy lives, it is simply not a viable proposition to fund health care. People are being made really sick by the system. If you just write a blank check for things as they are now it's a recipe for disaster as much as I want universal health care. People will probably just get sicker. At the current time it's probably a good incentive to stay and get well if you don't have insurance! (I say this partially in jest because of course there are medical catastrophes that occur over which one doesn't have any control.) I think a surtax should be put on big pharma to pay for it but don't think that's going to go very far.

As I just wrote on my Blog, Obama cannot decide whether to take the Red Pill or the Blue Pill.

I agree with the Washington Examiner newspaper, the president took a Blue Pill before the conference. And the Blue Pill wasn't Viagra.

Just an unpopular opinion way outside the box on a national health care plan.

We as a nation have to decide whether health care is a right or a privilege.

If we agree it's a right. Then we need to buck up and enact a plan that covers everyone; then pass the cost onto the whole society.

If it's a privilege, then we need to step away from the issue and let market forces do their nasty work.

Now if we want to go down the privilege road. We could actually start to cover a lot of hard working people, and even those not able to work without any benefits that are law abiding citizens with a fairly radical approach.

Break the law, go to jail or prison, receive no health care. There would be enough real savings to cover just about everyone else.

This is a fail safe plan; since if health care cost rise, we can just create more laws and place more people in prison.

The ACLU won't like this much of course

The health care issue is very complex. Obama's plan, whatever it is, is worth giving a shot. The insurance industry bankrupted itself - AIG anyone. I'm all for private insurance and socialized medicine. I say let's give his suggestions a chance. The old insurance model can't work for the same reasons social security can't. Too many people are old and using all the resources so a new model is needed.

I recently visited an insurance brokerage office building which had lovely offices, natural light everywhere, a gymnasium, health coach, and part time massage therapist (not kidding).

Meanwhile, my son, who works two jobs, can't afford health insurance for his family $700.00 out of pocket to put them on a policy. I am enraged at the talk about this. Our congress has socialized medicine in the form of their health care policies and it is paid by us (our taxes.)

How dare they and how dare us in making Obama's courage in pushing them into a political argument?

People are really suffering.

"they’ll be no private insurance industry left"

And this is bad how?

There is so much wrong with our health care system right now that it's just mind boggling. As I said above unless there is a two pronged approach that reduces medical costs and increases effectiveness at the same time that we legislate for more coverage I don't see how the latter can really happen without dire consequences. We need to put draconian taxes on things like high fructose corn syrup and, dare I say it here, cigarettes and have these taxes funnel directly into health care support. We should subsidize gym memberships and yoga classes (don't laugh). Most of all we need to rout out iatrogenesis and impose punitive measures on the people and firms that are responsible. I think we really have to get serious about all of the above before we talk about more coverage frankly or at least move on these things both at the same time. But it is definitely a conundrum with lots of angles and no easy solution. The way in was easy; the way out is not.

large employers enjoy the benefit from providing ins with pre-tax dollars. smaller employers cannot receive this same perk, since they don;t have the same buying power, and health ins companies thus ignore them.

what if the tax break were connected to each person buying health ins? you enter the dollars you paid for your premium on your tax form, your income goes down that much, and so you get the tax break regardless of whether you work for a large employer or small?

that alone addresses a lot of problems.

if you want to go farther, require anyone with kids to have kids get covered, plus maybe add a bit more tax break. i already get a double tax break for my kids: each is a deduction, then i get the child tax credit.

Finally, IF after a couple years these ideas seem to make progress, then play with the tax break until most ppl choose to be covered.

as each change comes online, the insurance industry can get some experience adjusting. eventually, they will figure out the price for covering the expanded set of ppl, andwill figure out how to market to the expanded set.

no longer simply going to the largest employers and doing the sales job.

no need to put the govt in charge, etc.

I'm thrilled about the prospect of health care reform, but can anyone tell me why pharma seems so gung-ho about reform?

WomanofHope, you will have to ask the President. The negotiations with BIG PHRMA and the Health Insurance Industry are being held in secret behind close doors at the White House.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/obama-bush-policies.html

The question is can anyone, not just Obama, reform US health care when it has so many years of complex entrenched vested interests accompanied by a political system that allows such power to lobbyists and campaign funding?

As current US health care costs 1&1/2 to 2 times as much as any other developed OECD country (despite all other OECD countries granting universal health cover as a citizen's civil right) there must be a lot of people and organisations making money who would resist change.

An further thought - actually where the USA system does appear to be very good at producing beneficial change is through the judiciary. Perhaps a case should be put to the Supreme Court that citizens not having health cover is an abrogation of their civil rights - there may be international conventions the USA is signatory to that require this, then again there may not - maybe something in the constitution could be argued as supporting this?

Seems odd to have a constitutional right to bear arms but no right to health care?

The Constitution circumscribes the limits of government not the people. Far too many fail to understand this and look to the government for "rights". Really what you are asking for is for others to transfer their money to you. There are no true "rights" that necessitate this taking.

The right to KEEP AND BEAR arms is arguably the first right from which all others can be secured. Health care is an entitlement. You are asking/demanding that others pay so that you may avail yourself of someone else's professional services. Why stop at health? Everyone needs food, transportation, companionship - how about employment?. Should these be provided for you as a "right"?

I don't think the U.S. Constitution is relevant to the issue of health care. It doesn't seem to address the issue. Not everything regarded as a right today was originally in the Constitution - the right for everyone not to be enslaved, for example. Society can choose to add new things as rights if it wants to. If the right to bear arms is the one from which all other rights are secured, what does that say about the rights and status of people who are prohibited from gun ownership due to a psychiatric record?

To the best of my knowledge, the United States is unique among the developed countries of the world in not having universal medical care for all of its citizens, and I think that has been true for most of the past half-century. Some people seem to think that is something to be proud of - that it is one way in which the U.S. is actually better than alll those other countries. I think it is kind of disgraceful myself.

I suppose people can have different definitions of what constitutes a need, but people in this country are literally dying for lack of medical care. (I don't think the same could be said of transportation or companionship.) Ironically, the U.S. actually spends more per capita on health care than all of those other countries which have universal coverage. The big difference here, of course (or at least one of them), is that huge amounts of money are diverted to the medical insurance industry, which itself produces nothing of value and is kind of like a giant tumor - weakening the country's economy as it consumes more and more of its resources. Like all malignancies, it will eventually destroy its host.