The Obama No Confidence Vote

[WhiskeyGirl]

The talk turned to presidents they had known, and why they had wanted the job. This one wanted it as the last item on his résumé, that one wanted it out of an inflated sense of personal destiny. Is that why Mr. McCain wants it? "No," said one, reflectively. "He wants to help the country." The other added, with almost an air of wonder, "He wants to make America stronger, he really does." And then they spoke, these two men who'd been bruised by him, of John McCain's honest patriotism.

Those who have historically been sympathetic to the Republican Party or conservatism, and who support Barack Obama -- Colin Powell, William Weld and Charles Fried, among others -- and whose arguments have not passed muster with some muster-passers, go undamned here. Their objections include: The McCain campaign has been inadequate, and some of his major decisions embarrassing. All too true. But conservatives must honor prudence, and ask if the circumstances accompanying an Obama victory will encourage the helpful moderation and nonpartisan spirit these supporters attempt, in their endorsements, to demonstrate.

There is for instance, in the words of Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty, "the runaway train." The size and dimension of the likely Democratic victory seem clear. A Democratic House with a bigger, more fervent Democratic majority; a Democratic Senate with the same, and possibly with a filibuster-breaking 60 seats; a new and popular Democratic president, elected by a few points or more; a Democratic base whose anger and hunger have built for eight years; Democratic activists and operatives hungry for business and action. What will this mix produce? A runaway train with no one to put on the brakes, to claim a mandate for slowing, no one to cry "Crossing ahead"? Democrats in Congress will move for innovation when much of the country hopes only for stability. Who will tell Congress of that rest of the nation? Mr. Obama will be overwhelmed trying to placate the innovators.

America enjoyed divided government most successfully recently from 1994 to 2000, with Bill Clinton in the White House and Newt Gingrich in effect running Congress. It wasn't so bad. In fact, it yielded a great deal, including sweeping reform of the welfare system, and balanced budgets.

And there is this. The past few months as the campaign unfolded, I listened for Mr. Obama to speak thoughtfully about the life issues, including abortion. Our last Democratic president knew what that issue was, and knew by nature how to speak of it. Bill Clinton famously said, over and over, that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." The "rare" mattered. It set a tone, as presidents do, and made an important concession: You only want a medical practice to be rare when it isn't good. For Mr. Obama, whose mind tends, as intellectuals' minds do, toward the abstract, it all seems so . . . abstract. And cold. And rather suggestive of radical departures. "That's above my pay grade." Friend, that is your pay grade, that's where the presidency lives, in issues like that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122539802263585317.html

[WhiskeyGirl]

A pre existing condition is a medical condition that existed before you obtained health insurance. In most cases, there is a 9 month waiting period for pre existing medical condition coverage. That means that if a company offers you coverage, they may not provide coverage for that specific pre existing medical condition for 9 - 12 months.

Are health insurance companies a kind of welfare benefit?  Do they have the ability to just tax and spend citizen money?  Or, must they compete with other companies? 

If everyone applied for healthcare only after they got cancer and needed treatment, who would pay?  How would the insurance company pay for that?  Take up a collection on the street?

He began with a personal story: his mother, dying of cancer at age 53, having to fight her insurance company, trying to prove that her disease had not been a pre-existing condition. He broadened that into a general proposition about the proper role of government: "It is absolutely true that I think it is important for government to crack down on insurance companies that are cheating their customers." - Time

In many cases, if have had coverage in place for at least 18 months with no more than a 63 day gap in coverage, and you are just switching insurance companies, the new company will give you credit for having coverage in place and waive the waiting periods for your conditions. This allows you to switch plans if you need to.

Remember, the idea for insurance is to protect yourself in case something bad happens. You don't buy car insurance to cover the cost of oil changes for your car, you buy it for the really bad things that can happen. The same is true for health insurance. You need to have it in place before something bad happens. You can't buy auto insurance after the accident to cover the cost of the accident. The same is true for health insurance - WikiAnswers

Senator's Obama's answer to this problem is to permit you to get insurance after you get sick by forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. That will only punish people who already have insurance by raising their rates to cover these people who only join the system when they need to collect from it. That is just bad business and a bad way to cover American's health care.

What troubles me about this - did he ever say anything like "Mom, I'm a lawyer, I know a little something about health insurance policies."  or "Mom, don't worry about paying, I'll take care of everything." or "Mom, we have HIPAA, you've had continuous coverage, so paying shouldn't be a problem".

There are also other government programs, were they considered?

Did Ann have the opportunity to buy/continue her coverage and she decided against it at some point?

http://fredfryinternational.blogspot.com/2008/10/did-barack-obamas-mother-have-health.html

Will everyone of the Obama nation contribute to the cost of national plan?  Or just those that get sick?  Business?

[WhiskeyGirl]

A comment -

At 11/01/2008 01:50:00 PM,  4NoParty said...

I felt his story was a little short on honesty at the time. It seemed as if it had been whitewashed to fit the political fairy-tale he was spinning.
His mother was misdiagnosed by a doctor in a foreign Country, and, she had no insurance. Why she had no insurance is something we will probably never know, but to suggest it was somehow the fault of the Insurance Companies was more than a little dishonest. My daughter in laws mother died of ovarian cancer. She was an English citizen, had insurance via the Socialized Medicine in England, was 40 years old, wasn't given prompt attention because they had waiting list, and when they finally decided she could be checked over, found it was too late. Socialized insurance had the same results as having no insurance had with Obama's mother. To fudge the truth as he did to make a political point, was tacky, and gravely misleading.

http://fredfryinternational.blogspot.com/2008/10/did-barack-obamas-mother-have-health.html

Lucky for the American people, the 4% solution will save us.   It's like the plan available for Congress, but NOT.  I would imagine at some level the 4% solution will struggle for funding, while the Congressional plan will not.

The plan available to Congress - an executive only plan for the leaders, like those on Wall Street, a 4% solution for the rest of us.

Any plans to addrress in healthcare inflation?  IIRC, it increase at a rate greater than general inflation.  Any plan to look at those corporate healthcare provider executive bonus plans?  Maybe a review of marketing and compensation could head off another disaster (Wall Street).

The Obama generation didn't seem to respond to Wall Street trouble when some wanted reforms during the Bush era.  What chance is there that they will address healthcare providers?  (clue=slim to none)

just my humble opinions

[WhiskeyGirl]

Healthcare is much like Social Security or other retirement plans.  There are volumes of statistics and smart people.

Statistics show that most will get sick and/or old at some point in life and need healthcare and retirement money.  Plan.  Put some money aside.  Now it seems like the new change will take all my savings and future savings, gone-poof never to be seen again.

I don't have a gas pump in my back yard, and there is no magic money tree.  Yet, the money has to come from somewhere.

What does it look like when a bank forecloses on your house?

What will it look like when China and other nations forecloses on the US and expect payment in full?  Is that a better future than a depression?  It is a future that any nation has survived?

With Americans being squeezed by an increasing Federal debt load and new taxes (wolves in sheeps clothing) where is the money for real charity and giving to come from? 

I have confidence that government will not make better choices.  Media reports suggest that donations through government bodies are waylaid, stolen, squandered, and do not reach the intended recipients.

It just seems like government is planning on ripping off the last two nickles in my pocket that the gas pump missed.

just my humble opinions

[nonesuche]

WhiskeyGirl - actually the issue of pre-existing conditions is a valid concern, what I resent again is that really didn't apply to Obama's mother, due to her lapse in coverage. If he was so successful as to afford his mansion then why couldn't he have helped her more financially? I'd like to know what he did for his grandmother post all of her sacrifices too?

The real danger around pre-existing conditions is that if you have a significant illness such as cancer, then try to move to a new job or a new provider, they can and often do refuse to cover that "pre-existing" condition. Each provider has their own set of rules regarding it, Rick ran into this during his two year battle with cancer. He was downsized two weeks post his first cancer surgery, did elect to take COBRA (which we paid for out of pocket), and when hired for his new job BCBS did try to push back and not pay when he required treatment again when the cancer returned. We fought it and we won, honestly if you put documentation on paper and send it in confidently stating to the provider you'll hire legal assistance - often they will back down and cover.

But we need to have tighter controls around this with providers and regulations that do protect us all.

[WhiskeyGirl]

If there were a REAL healthcare program established, appropriately funded, and maintained (not looted to pay for other programs) cancer and other health concerns would not be a problem.

In my opinion, it would need just reasonable contributions by everyone, to fund healthcare for a lifetime. 

There would be no need to bicker about who pays for pre-existing conditions. 

An employer providing a self-funded healthcare program could be overwhelmed by people with pre-existing conditions.  This is one of the reasons small employee groups cannot afford insurance. 

If they unknowingly hire one person with a very expensive pre-existing condition, it jeopardizes the whole group.

I think universal healthcare would work well, but it needs a backbone, and contributions by all.

The Obama plan, from what I've seen is adding expensive layers of management (national healthcare exchange, auditors, regulators), a patchwork of programs, and doesn't address healthcare inflation.

The "haves" remain (members of Congress and their families) and the "have nots" (those with a plan LIKE (but NOT) the one for members of Congress and their families).  Most in the US are the "have nots".

One alternative is to expand the Medicare or Medicaid concepts and include everyone, including members of Congress and their families.

One good plan for everyone, no exceptions!   

just my humble opinions