Michelle Obama Pushes Health Care Reform

“FLOTUS Fashion Watch: Mrs. Obama wore a pink, brown and white patterned knee-length pencil skirt, with a brown three-quarter length sleeve top and large brown belt.”
Thank goodness you included that vital information. Incidentally, does the First Lady always speak of the First Family in the Third Person, as she did in L.A. earlier in the week?
“That’s why I always say there’s nothing that the First Family loves more than a good burger, right? (Laughter.)”
Has the discrepancy between her and her husband’s version of the meningitis scare every straightened out? Last we knew, he thought the child actually had it, and she said it was a “scare.”

Isn’t this the woman that couldn’t find a reason to be proud of this country until her husband became the democratic nomininee for president? One would think that after she received a degree from arguably the best school in the world via scholarships and grants she would be proud. Nope.
Or when she received a salary of $300,000 per year for managing a hospital she would be proud. Nope.
Or when both of her daughters were able to attend the most prestigious schools in chicago she would be proud. Nope.
And finally, once her husband became IL’s senator she would be proud. Nope.
Her opinion on what needs to be done in this country means nothing to me.
She should just keep staying in 5 star hotels, eating 5 star meals, and traveling in some of the best luxury jets in the world and keep her mouth shut.

Oh my! How long has she not had any health insurance? What doctors are giving her poor health care? I think we should get her on a government health plan immediately!

One primary focus of the reforms has proposed making sure EVERYONE has health care coverage whether sick – OR CURRENTLY HEALTHY – everyone.
Posted by: julieterra
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which healthcare proposal covers EVERYONE????

Which healthcare proposal covers EVERYONE????
______________________________
I didn’t mean everone on the entire planet.
Trying to make sure every American has health care insurance has been a major focus of the entire reform initiative.

didn’t mean everone on the entire planet.
Trying to make sure every American has health care insurance has been a major focus of the entire reform initiative.
Posted by: julieterra
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
then give me the proposal that covers every AMERICAN on healthcare or retract the statement and admitt it was false

“Trying to make sure every American has health care insurance has been a major focus of the entire reform initiative.”
_____________________________________
Nothing false about this statement at all.

For the life of me I can’t find in the US Constitution that gives Congress the authority to mandate that individuals by a certain product.
Have they ever done that before?
_____________________________________
You don’t think people are required to buy car insurance?

Google Michelle Obama’s Patient-Dumping Scheme. Look at the real Michelle

No.. in some states you are not required to buy auto insurance…
I happen to live in such a state.
_____________________________________
In most of America, the GOVERNMENT requires you to have auto insurance covering liability for injuries and property damage done to others.
In other words, you are required to purchase a certain product.

Julieterra wrote: “In other words, you are required to purchase a certain product.”
But you can choose NOT to have a car, and not drive–thus you can avoid having to purchase auto insurance. THAT is the difference.
Right now we have the Right to not have medical insurance; and we have the Right to turn down medical treatment. What the Left is trying to do is deny us those Rights and force us to have medical insurance. And under consideration is mandated healthy lifestyles (or at least hefty penalties if we don’t adhere to government guidelines) which further erodes our freedoms.

James Danley | Oct 23, 2009 5:03:32 PM:
“Right now we have the Right to not have medical insurance; and we have the Right to turn down medical treatment.”
You also have the Right to not buy any insurance and then force ME to pay for your ER care. Your Right is infringing on my Right not to have to give up my money to support 25 year olds who are “healthy” and then need $80k in ER care after crashing their motorcycle. Or self-reliant farmers who soak up $100k a year of hospital foundation money.
“And under consideration is mandated healthy lifestyles (or at least hefty penalties if we don’t adhere to government guidelines) which further erodes our freedoms.”
Please cite ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that has implemented such a program. And if none of the socialist-embracing Old Europe countries have ever done it, that speaks a great deal to either your paranoia or the unique contempt you hold for our nation, the most prosperous free nation mankind has seen.

Yes these tear jerking stories do play on our heart strings but isn’t that life? There are people all over this country every bit as smart as our leaders but they’ll never be President, there are great atheletes all over this country but they’ll never be a pro and kids are born everyday with sound minds but physical deformities and vice versa.
If you are a man or woman who has worked and you become disabled there is a safety net and it is called medicare and if you never worked there is medicaid both funded for the reason Michellle states and that is to prevent disaster in times of illness.
We are not guaranteed our next breath, we are not guaranteed the same wealth or happiness as the people up or down the street but we as Americans always have and always will step up and provide for the needy when we are called.
What we don’t need is another Government program.

“If you are a man or woman who has worked and you become disabled there is a safety net and it is called medicare and if you never worked there is medicaid both funded for the reason Michellle states and that is to prevent disaster in times of illness.”
____________________________________
The problem with this is the taxpayer is left to pick up the bills for the sick, the old, the veterans, the infirm.
The insuance companies skim the cream off the young, the healthy and the employed.
It’s a system heavily rigged to favor the insurance company and burden the taxpayer, and we will change it.

“Yes these tear jerking stories do play on our heart strings but isn’t that life?”
david | Oct 23, 2009 5:19:31 PM
Not in every other first world country in existence, where if your wife gets sick you do not have to fear losing your home trying to pay for treatment. America’s government is far better than France’s, Italy’s, Britian’s – why don’t Americans have faith that it can do at least an equally good job in offering an insurance option to compete with the private insurers?

This “genius” was personally involved with opening a clinic in rural Virginia wich duplicated the medical services of another practice less than a mile away-it was all show. Instead of taking the time and effort to identify an underserved area, the WH latched onto an unnecessary waste of medical resources for pure political propaganda.

“Not in every other first world country in existence, where if your wife gets sick you do not have to fear losing your home trying to pay for treatment.”
Great Britain, at least until recently, has been thought to be a first-world country. Earlier this year its NHS notified all Britons nearing old age that they should plan on caring for themselves at their own expense when they become elderly because the NHS has, to use Mrs. Thatcher’s phrase, run out of other people’s money. So elderly Britons will be very lucky if they can pay for their treatment by selling their homes.
Note that they do no face rising premiums: they have no premiums, other than the taxes they pay. What they face is paying, dollar for dollar, for every bit of their treatment, because they do not have any health insurance at all. All they have is a benign, civilized, English-speaking first-world government that a half century ago borrowed far beyond its means and, at the same time, took control of every aspect of its people’s healthcare. The serfs, like so many sheep, trusted them. They were the government, and they knew better.
And today mothers are giving birth in the linen closets and lavatories of NHS hospitals.

“America’s government is far better than France’s, Italy’s, Britian’s – why don’t Americans have faith that it can do at least an equally good job in offering an insurance option to compete with the private insurers?”
Perhaps because it is the same government that tied health insurance inextricably and irrationally to employment; that imposed unequal tax treatment on employer-provided and individual insurance; that prohibits companies from selling insurance nationwide; and that assiduously resists any sensible tort reform.
And perhaps principally because it wouldn’t be competition at all: under every currently proposed plan, the entity controlling one “competitor”–the government–would dictate in detail the terms that all other competitors would be required to offer consumers. Want to offer a lower-cost catastrophic policy, or one that doesn’t cover substanse abuse counseling? Tough–you can’t, and so you customers can’t buy one. There will be a handful of policies to choose from, all of which must comply with the mandates of that one all-powerful “competitor. That’s competition in the sense that a hanging is a competitio between a man and a rope.

Jhw539, here is an excerpt from a NY Times article by Norimitsu Onishi, dated June 13, 2008, regarding Japan’s mandatory waistline limits:
“Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.
“Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.
“To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets.” –
Now then, an amendment to the Senate’s healthcare bill calls for up to a 50% reduction of the cost of coverage for employees if they are attempting to lose weight or quit smoking. This amounts to a hefty penalty for those who do not lose weight or quit smoking and have to pay more for their healthcare insurance.
Also, on a state level, North Carolina is on the verge of passing a bill that will penalize state employees by placing them in a more expensive health insurance plan if they are obese. Smokers will also be penalized. South Carolina has already passed a bill that will force state employees who smoke to pay more for health insurance starting next year.

Findlayway:When the Republican Congress came up with the idiotic Medicare D program, no Republicans complained.
=============
Yes, Republicans complained. Republicans started losing seats in large part due to that budget buster.

And yes, it is hilarious to hear Michelle Obama who- along with Axelrod, Jarrett, and Sher- devised a plan to talk people without insurance to leave the emergency room and go to a clinic talk about people being denied care.

Jhw539 wrote: “Our taxes haven’t been this low in almost a century.”
Jeanne Sahadi (CNNMoney.com senior writer) on Oct. 3, 2009 wrote (two excerpts):
1. “In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
“Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.”
2. “Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.”
And you Liberals complain that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes!

“And you Liberals complain that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes!”
_______________________________
Oh those poor rich people.

Now then when you give a reduction as an incentive you are conversely penalizing those who do not adhere to the incentive.
Regardless, my earlier statement stated: “And under consideration is mandated healthy lifestyles (or at least hefty penalties if we don’t adhere to government guidelines) which further erodes our freedoms.” Jhw539 wanted me to provide evidence of this…so I did.
____________________________________
Yes and I disagree with you. There is no ‘mandated’ healthy lifestyles.
It’s actually a REDUCED RATE for people attempting to lose weight or quit smoking? Same as there is a reduced car insurance rate for safe drivers?
Do you not think smoking and becoming obese end up impacting on the health care system? Sure, it’s your choice, but it’s a choice you can pay for – as the legislation suggests.

“her hubby the Man-Child in Chief”
________________________________
More juvenile name calling as right wing intelligent discussion.

“And under consideration is mandated healthy lifestyles (or at least hefty penalties if we don’t adhere to government guidelines) which further erodes our freedoms
***
I love when conservatives argue that financial incentives for following a healthy lifestyle somehow interfere with their rights to be fat and unhealthy, eat junk food and so on. Humorous.
So you’re against all financial incentives, James Danley, because on the flip side they’re disincenting someone and interfering with freedom, hence they’re “mandates” and mandates are to be avoided?
How do you feel about obesity as a pre-existing condition in the private sector? Or higher insurance rates for smokers? Is anything the private sector does fine and good, but everything the government does intrusive and somehow infringing on your liberty?

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 23, 2009 6:26:12 PM
School funding in my neck of the woods comes from state income tax and sales tax too.

isn’t working well? I guess that is why 85% of Americans are happy with their health care. What planet are these people from?

“isn’t working well? I guess that is why 85% of Americans are happy with their health care. What planet are these people from?”
____________________________________
Polls show a majority of Americans favor a public option to compete with private insurers. I’m thinking the public option will be in the reforms.

Gwen Tenn wrote: “…but everything the government does instrusive and somehow infringing on your liberty?”
ABSOLUTELY!
I believe in Capitalism and the Free Market with as little interference from the government (federal, state and local) as possible. Obviously there are safety regulations, anti-discrimination laws and geographic or environmental considerations that are necessary. With greater competition and more options–both in number of insurers and number of plans provided by each insurer–people can shop around for the healthcare plan that best suits their situation. This could include plans that might give some discounts for non-smokers. The difference is that it would not be mandated.
I would prefer that IF the federal goverment is to become another option, that it ONLY provide catastrophic insurance for existing conditions INSTEAD OF forcing the private sector to cover existing conditions.
Now as for obesity, how has someone’s obesity ever harmed anyone else? Why must we force people to live a certain way just to fit a particular mold? It’s ironic that the Left champions tolerance for others, but it’s acceptible for them to have their own limitations on tolerance. Some people are obese due to medical conditions. Some are obese because they may have an underlying emotional or psychological problem. Some are obese because its genetic. And some are obese because they just love to eat. If a person is unhappy being obese, THEY should make the first move and try to get help. If a person is happy being obese, why should we interfere with their lifestyle and self esteem? Again, with all due respect, why is it any anyone else’s business? That is what Individual Freedom and self determination is all about!
When it comes to medical insurance for obese patients, I don’t believe the government has any business getting involved. And I don’t believe obese patients should pay any more than non-obese patients. I personally believe that is discrimination–especially since for many it is NOT a lifestyle but genetic or due to an underlying emotional or psychological problem that is out of their control. Just as it would be discrimination to charge African-Americans more for medical insurance because they are susceptible to cycle cell anemia.

I got an idea. How about Michelle makes an executive decision and personally pledges that Obama, herself, and their daughters will go on the Obamacare model- instead of the Presidential Perk plan or the Congressional plan or whatever private plan they had/will-have? But I’ll bet much Michelle/Barry’s support for public schooling they will opt not. Just as the Obamas send their daughters to an exclusive, expensive, and elitist private school but still extoll and promote public schools for everyone in DC (and elsewhere.) Take the kids out of Sidwell Friends, drop the Presidential healthcare plan, and do as you DO— not just as you say Barry S.!

It’s ironic that the Left champions tolerance for others, but it’s acceptible for them to have their own limitations on tolerance.
***
So financial incentives=intolerance toward those who don’t get the incentive?
I just wonder when financial incentives are okay, if ever, and when they’re not for you. So no financial incentives because there is a corresponding disincentive and that interferes with liberty and is intolerant? Right? No tax incentives for job creation or small business startups? Because that would discriminate against people who don’t create jobs or start up small businesses? No incentives? And you’re consistent on that?

Even a top Democrat admits that this Health Care hoax isnt going to save anyone money David Gergen | BIO AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst Massachusetts is often cited as a model of the health reform that Democrats are seeking this year: the law it passed a few years ago has indeed brought universal coverage (only 3 percent of the state’s population is no longer covered) but it has failed to bring down costs, and premiums in Massachusetts are the highest in the country.

There are now signs of recovery in the China economy with the government’s infrastructure projects beginning to have an impact and as the Purchasing Managers new orders index rebounds. The December PMI rebounded to 41.2, 2.4 percentage points higher than the previous month, which represents the first meaningful rebound since March 2008.