PDA

View Full Version : Obama Continues To Tank



M&K's Retrievers
12-22-2009, 11:08 AM
According to rasmussenreports.com Obama's poll numbers continue to drop today reaching a new low. How long will the Congress continue to support his Socialist programs? At this rate he may very well become the most unpopular president in history.

WaterDogRem
12-22-2009, 11:16 AM
How long will the Congress continue to support his Socialist programs?

Long as congress members (R or Ds) can continue to fill their greedy pockets.

dnf777
12-22-2009, 03:41 PM
I don't think the 64% of Americans who voted for change are going to be happy with this health bill, if it's anywhere near the senate version, and even if it is, the right wing will NEVER like him. By trying to please everyone, he's pissed everyone off. Except the big insurance companies, who will be getting 30 million Christmas gifts from this bill if it passes.

BonMallari
12-22-2009, 04:35 PM
I don't think the 64% of Americans who voted for change are going to be happy with this health bill, if it's anywhere near the senate version, and even if it is, the right wing will NEVER like him. By trying to please everyone, he's pissed everyone off. Except the big insurance companies, who will be getting 30 million Christmas gifts from this bill if it passes.

at least someone on here understands...well said..I have to ask you dnf777 on a personal note do you see the passage of a healthcare bill detrimental to your practice, i know I have discussed it with my brother who like you is an MD but his contempt for the current administration makes it difficult to have a civil discussion

dnf777
12-22-2009, 09:51 PM
I work for UPMC, who is a giant international healthcare corporation, with more investment holdings than anyone in Pittsburgh, except Mellon-BNY, so I'm somewhat removed from the issue. UPMC negotiates or strong-arms with the payors and medicare for their money, then what they pay their docs is up to them and their resources. I have been very happy with them so far. As for private docs, what we've seen in healthcare is a shift of payment from docs (in the form of professional fees) to hospital for service fees. Now, docs are contracting their services with hospitals in order to get some of that money back. Or working for them directly, like I do.

I don't know what drives our economy anymore, or how we as Americans are creating any real wealth. Our economy is like a star that has shone brightly for a long time, but now is beginning to implode, as it has no more creation capacity. I think we are all going to feel a contraction in the coming years. I think the American standard of living will decrease, coming more in line with much of the rest of the world. More accurately, correct itself. When I was in school, most families had ONE or maybe TWO cars, if both parents worked. Now, everyone over the age of 16 must have their own car. Its not unusual to see 5 or 6 cars scattered around a house. Think of the number of televisions in your house when you were a kid, versus now. Don't get me wrong, I like all that stuff, but it may be adjusted down a little here soon.

I know you asked about healthcare, not the economy; but I think the two are inseparable at this point. At last look, healthcare was what? 17% of the GNP? If the economy grows, there will be money to put into the system and it will continue to thrive, as will practices. If not, we will dwindle into a two-tiered system, like much of the rest of the industrialized nations. A national system for most, and private practices for those who can afford to pay out of pocket for fancy waiting rooms, nice music, short lines, and other amenities that we are all accustomed to so far. In more and more American towns and even cities, healthcare entities are the largest employers in town! Sure, we need healthcare, but in reality, it doesn't create wealth, it just moves it around, as most service jobs do. (unless it's Soooo good that other countries send patients and dollars to us in droves, but that ain't happenin!) I'm no economist, but how can an economy survive, who's largest employers are service industries that generate no net wealth??

I don't think Obama's bill will have many overnite drastic effects. I think the overall trends that have been in place for the past 15 years will continue to exert a larger, slower effect, that ultimately will result in a decline in the quality of care we can provide. This bill will get rolled into that larger trend and contribute, but not effect much by itself, JMHO. It has really been neutrered already in terms of helping those it was concieved to help, while likely hurting many middle-class individuals and businesses. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of conference, probably after the new year. Had he stuck to his campaign rhetoric and demanded a public option, he would have ticked off roughly half the US. Many of those intitially ticked, would have been helped by the plan, and maybe some would even admit it. What he's done now, helps nobody except the insurance companies, and potentially harms many. I think he's in the process of sealing his fate as a one-termer if this goes through as it looks. Does anyone remember a first term president NOT getting his party's nomination after the first 4 years? (that wanted it)

WRL
12-22-2009, 10:28 PM
The message on Fast Money is that healthcare is THE TRADE........they are all going up.

And will continue to do so as things look good for the healthcare bill/s to pass.

WRL

M&K's Retrievers
12-22-2009, 11:20 PM
work.


What he's done now, helps nobody except the insurance companies, . )

How exactly will this help insurance companies. Hell, I'm in the business and might drop my coverage, pay the fine and buy coverage when I'm diagonosed with something. I'll save $600 per month for me and my wife.I have several clients who can't wait to drop their group plans and tell their employees "too bad so sad go see Obama".

This "deal" has not been thought through far enough. How many employees in the health insurance industry will eithor lose their jobs or have their incomes reduced?

As an insurance agent who markets group and individual health insurance products for a living, don't you think I would be delighted at all the new prospects that "must" buy from me or "else". They aren't going to buy diddly squat until they have to. This isn't like auto insurance where states require you to purchase insurance or you can't tag your car. This deal lets people buy insurance after they have had a wreck. An insurance company cannot charge enough for this kind of selection. I predict the uninsured numbers will double.

On a positive note, I should have plenty of time to work with my dogs and improve my pitiful training and shooting skills. I had one guy tell me" that dog needs somebody to take him hunting".

dnf777
12-23-2009, 07:42 AM
How exactly will this help insurance companies. Hell, I'm in the business and might drop my coverage, pay the fine and buy coverage when I'm diagonosed with something. I'll save $600 per month for me and my wife.I have several clients who can't wait to drop their group plans and tell their employees "too bad so sad go see Obama".

This "deal" has not been thought through far enough. How many employees in the health insurance industry will eithor lose their jobs or have their incomes reduced?

As an insurance agent who markets group and individual health insurance products for a living, don't you think I would be delighted at all the new prospects that "must" buy from me or "else". They aren't going to buy diddly squat until they have to. This isn't like auto insurance where states require you to purchase insurance or you can't tag your car. This deal lets people buy insurance after they have had a wreck. An insurance company cannot charge enough for this kind of selection. I predict the uninsured numbers will double.

On a positive note, I should have plenty of time to work with my dogs and improve my pitiful training and shooting skills. I had one guy tell me" that dog needs somebody to take him hunting".

M&K,
I'll defer to your expertise in the insurance industry on that. I deal with it from a different angle. I did mention that I don't see any immediate, drastic effects, but if it eventually works as designed, won't you have 30 million more clients signing up somewhere? Personally, I think it's stupid, as written. He t ried to appease everyone and ended up with a piece of crap. There are many other problems with it that have been mentioned on these forums already that I agree with, too.

Wait 'n see regards,
dAve

Uncle Bill
12-24-2009, 12:04 PM
What Reid,Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats will pass, has NOTHING to do with healthCARE!. It's a total power grab for socialism and dumbing down of society.

No longer is it good enough to be a "cradle-to-grave" Big Gubmint...it's gone to "from-erection-to-resurrection".

It's like the environmental loonies have done to the auto industry. Anyone gets a license regardless if you can read English or not. Buckle up ar be ticketed. Airbags. Pathetic little pregnant rollar skates, running around like a batch of bumper cars. Forced insurance I MUST buy for the UNinsured, as well as the UNDERinsured. WTF happened to individual responsibility? Talk about bureauracracy run amok.....

And now these liberal bastards are selling the sheeple on healthCARE??? How stupid are you people? If you don't like the freedoms our Constitution provides, MOVE! There are plenty locations you can go that provide fulltime universal health coverage from their government, why not go there and give it a try.

But that's not the liberal way. If a liberal likes it, then everyone MUST come under the same regulations. They just can't stand to be individualistic about it...it must be 'mutual' lowering of standards, so they THINK they are fair and equal. How pathetic.

From all this 'sheeple herding', you will NOT get what you want, but WILL get precisely what you deserve.

UB

Gerry Clinchy
12-24-2009, 03:35 PM
but if it eventually works as designed, won't you have 30 million more clients signing up somewhere?

Dave, if you lose $100 on each surgical procedure you perform, will you improve your profit by doing more procedures? My math says that you'll just lose more money & faster :-)

This is the situation the insurors face if people decide to act as M&K outlines. There is not a high enough premium to make a profit when you don't get to collect any premiums until the person is already sick.

The only way it will work is if the fine for not being insured is at least equal to what the premium would have been for the coverage; and the fine must be immediate for the period of non-coverage (or retroactive to the beginning of the non-covered period).

But you're also right, Dave. The effects won't be obvious until after 2012, after the next Pres election. So, for a few years yet it will appear as if nothing has changed.

road kill
12-24-2009, 03:51 PM
Dave, if you lose $100 on each surgical procedure you perform, will you improve your profit by doing more procedures? My math says that you'll just lose more money & faster :-)

This is the situation the insurors face if people decide to act as M&K outlines. There is not a high enough premium to make a profit when you don't get to collect any premiums until the person is already sick.

The only way it will work is if the fine for not being insured is at least equal to what the premium would have been for the coverage; and the fine must be immediate for the period of non-coverage (or retroactive to the beginning of the non-covered period).

But you're also right, Dave. The effects won't be obvious until after 2012, after the next Pres election. So, for a few years yet it will appear as if nothing has changed.


I am not sure if you have been paying close attention, but profit is evil!!:shock:

Gerry Clinchy
12-24-2009, 05:03 PM
I am not sure if you have been paying close attention, but profit is evil!!:shock:

Touche, RK.

Even if you change that to "break even" ... or the bureaucrats' word "sustainable" ... the net result is as M&K describes of buying car insurance AFTER you've had your wreck. How long after the wreck would the insuror need to "break even" on the claim they had already paid? In the case of serious illness, the answer is probably, "Never."

Even though I've paid into my health insurance for many years past, that amount of maybe $40K or $50K could easily be wiped out with just one serious illness (as many of us know).

So, to make this work, you MUST get everyone to participate. You need the younger, healthy people to put their money into the pot, to cover the older and/or sicker people's large claims. Otherwise you simply go broke (as our govt has proven it can do).

The end result, with or without a govt option, will be higher taxes ... for those who actually pay taxes. If the taxes aren't sufficient, then you have to do something about deciding to whom, when and what care is given.

It all goes back to the very simple, basic law of realty: There ain't no free lunch. Somebody has to pay for it. Somehow. Some way.

In all of this, if people don't get back to work everything suffers. Anything Washington does that interferes with that puts everything further into the tank.

dnf777
12-24-2009, 07:25 PM
Gerry, I don't argue with your points.
With all due respect, and you know I respect your views, WHAT IS the answer? I don't mean to put that all on you, but I have not seen anyone except Obama even admit there's a problem with the status quo. I don't like his plan, but at least he got the discussion, and legislative process in motion. Things tend not to change drastically in our system of gov't, by design.

I hear lots of Obama-bashing from many on this list, and that's fine....but what is their solution when THEIR healthcare coverage gets dropped, or premiums increased beyond affordability? Especially those on fixed incomes???

I hear lots of name calling, sheeple, obumma, etc...but little substance in the way of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, and offering solutions.

Hold on tight...here comes 2010!!
May we all prosper and take home ribbons,
dave

Gerry Clinchy
12-24-2009, 08:51 PM
With all due respect, and you know I respect your views, WHAT IS the answer?

Dave, I don't personally have the answer since I don't have all the resources that are available to our Congress and Pres.

This bill should not have been smushed together by Congresspeople. I think that the solutions lie in picking the brains of the people who are part of the system ... doctors, hospitals, other providers, including the insurors.

I think the answer lies in covering all the areas that create the costs of the system. A few come to mind readily:

1)As mentioned on another thread, regarding that hospital administrator who could get no help from INS in deporting patients that were being provided with very expensive, free services. There is at least a billion dollar problem to be solved there. INS has to be involved in that part of the cost problem.

2) Cost of drugs is inexorably tied to the process for getting new drugs approved. There was discussion on Lipitor v. other drugs that do the same job. It would appear that the drug approval system is a factor in overall cost control.

3) Tort reform was never even mentioned in the bills from either house! As you mentioned, it is very likely that the savings WRT tort reform do not include the time of the professionals used for depositions, etc. Tort reform would also relate to the use of "unnecessary" tests/treatments ... have those cost savings been included when there is talk that tort reform will not save all that much?

4) I think that the issue of pre-existing conditions is a big elephant in the room. From my days (years gone by) in the life/health business, insurors would cover many pre-existing conditions after a "waiting period". Pre-existing conditions were not all just arbritrarily excluded forever. That might be a partial solution to trying to insure those who neglected to get insurance when they should have done so & could have done so. This is sort of the case with Medicare Prescription coverage ... if you delay getting the coverage when you first become eligible for Medicare, you have to pay a higher premium for the delay. Naturally, this is a similar situation, in that people who aren't currently taking meds figure they don't need the coverage ... until they develop a condition that requires some expensive meds.

5) I think that the team approach used by the Mayo Clinic deserves more investigation as to how such an approach can be used to get the most bang out of the medical dollars expended.

To solve the problem well, you need to involve all those who know the nuts and bolts of the delivery system. A reform that is the best solution for everyone cannot be crafted by buying the votes for it as was done with Nelson. I find it despicable that Reid said that citizens should take their legislator to task if the didn't get something for their own State ... that this is the way the game is played.

The administration was in such a rush to do "something" that they have done it poorly. The idea of "reform" is to improve. If it doesn't fix a lot of the problems with the existing system, the long haul will not be an improvement.

If O had not won the election; and if health care reform was so very important to him, then he should have been crafting and researching for useful reform no matter what. As a member of Congress he could still have been a driving force for reform even if he had lost the election. As it was, he let Congress do it with what appears to have been very little "vision" of his own.

I did not see (but maybe I'm wrong) the same kind of in-depth, intense research on health reform that he used for his A'stan decision. I'm not saying that A'stan is less important than the health care issue ... but they are at least of equal importance. It does not appear that he did not brainstorm health care the way he did the A'stan decision.

Finding the best answer would take a greater mind than my own ... undoubtedly several of them!

dnf777
12-25-2009, 02:51 PM
Gerry,
I wish you would send a copy of your post #14 to your elected officials! I don't think truer words have ever been spoken, and that is the attitude/approach it will take to figure this thing out!

Gerry Clinchy
12-26-2009, 09:11 AM
Gerry,
I wish you would send a copy of your post #14 to your elected officials!


Maybe I should just run for office ... and solve my own health care coverage problem by getting it free?

I have written my Congressmen! I get back the same kind of platitudes that they use everywhere else.

By the way, maybe I have come up with a theory as to why O has not been more closely associated with the health care reform crafted by Congress ... if it bombs, he can always say it was not the plan he wanted; not "his" plan. With A'stan, he had no choice but to make the ultimate decision on which plan to use. Not saying that the Pres should have the ability to "rule" Congress in the same way, but surely "leadership" can be a factor. When it comes to cooling off a hot situation, he did better with the Harvard professor and the police officer ... perhaps he should have taken a page out of that book in dealing with the partisanship in Congress? I'm sure I'm not more intelligent than the Pres, so if I can come up with a rough outline, he should have been able to do a LOT better.

It also occurs to me that it is no wonder our prison system is so expensive. Prisoners receive very good health care ... purely at taxpayer expense. What happens when you extend that kind of arrangement to 30 million more people?

Has anyone considered the simplest solution of all? Simply add $100 to the tax bill of every FIT filing for anyone under age 65 (and possibly the same for anyone over $65 whose income exceeds $100,000 ... and there certainly are some of them, I'm sure). Use that to fund distribution to Medicaid programs based on #s of eligible people in each state (NOT based on buying votes of Congresspeople). This whole thing will turn out to be a "tax" ... so you might as well call it a tax. Also any household getting subsidized aid should have to pay $20/month. 30 million X $240 = $7,200,000,000; figuring that there could be 4 people per household, divide that by 4 = still $1,800,000,000 ... close to $2 billion, which could provide a lot of services. $100 x 100,000,000 (taxpaying households) = $ $10,000,000,000 ... also would purchase a lot of services.

We should also keep in mind that many now eligible for Medicaid services don't get them because of the red tape involved in applying for same. If they did apply, our costs for Medicaid would already be higher than they are right now ... costs would increase by making the application process easier.

Add to this tax, and red-tape cutting, tort reform & eliminating fraud & abuse. You should get a lot of preventive/maintenance care with the tax funding.

fetchtx
12-26-2009, 09:37 AM
AARP came out in favor of the plan, then said they had not decided after thousands of members started dropping them, but are back in the fold now as the mailings have stepped up just in the last month from them advertising the supplemental coverages available as other company's after hearing of the Medicare cuts also started sending out the bait. All this started happening after the insurance company's were called to private meetings with Obama and his goons and were informed of how non cooperation would have consequences.

road kill
12-26-2009, 10:33 AM
AARP came out in favor of the plan, then said they had not decided after thousands of members started dropping them, but are back in the fold now as the mailings have stepped up just in the last month from them advertising the supplemental coverages available as other company's after hearing of the Medicare cuts also started sending out the bait. All this started happening after the insurance company's were called to private meetings with Obama and his goons and were informed of how non cooperation would have consequences.
fetchtx.....nice scoot!!

fetchtx
12-27-2009, 05:11 AM
Thanks, thats my NON dog activity and dang glad I am down here to enjoy it more.

Buzz
12-27-2009, 10:07 PM
This bill should not have been smushed together by Congresspeople. I think that the solutions lie in picking the brains of the people who are part of the system ... doctors, hospitals, other providers, including the insurors.




I think they did pick their brains. The problem is the money that comes from these industries that corrupts the process.

Gerry Clinchy
12-28-2009, 08:37 AM
I think they did pick their brains. The problem is the money that comes from these industries that corrupts the process.

No arguments with the corruption of our legislative power-brokers! They didn't actually pick their brains ... they "negotiated".

We would be better off with an "independent" study of a "reform" as mammouth as this.

M&K's Retrievers
05-26-2010, 12:12 PM
According to today's Rasmussen poll, obama has reached a new low in his Presidential Approval Index Rating of -22%. This is his lowest rating since taking office. 23% strongly approve of the job he is doing while 45% disapprove. obama has maintained a negative rating since 7/1/09. Keep up the good work.:rolleyes:

ducknwork
05-26-2010, 12:16 PM
Don't get too excited. As soon as people start going back to work, his numbers will shoot up as the MSM gives him all the credit that is due...and then some.

M&K's Retrievers
05-26-2010, 12:18 PM
Don't get too excited. As soon as people start going back to work, his numbers will shoot up as the MSM gives him all the credit that is due...and then some.

Yeah, right. How blue are you going to turn while holding your breath?

ducknwork
05-26-2010, 12:24 PM
If the economy turns around and people start going back to work before Nov 2011, Obama's presidency is saved and he will have a second term. For him, EVERYTHING rides on the economy. People will forget all this other stuff if they are making money and living comfortably again.

Don't get confused and think that I am saying that the economy is going to turn around, but if it does...Obama/Biden 2012 looks like a reality.

Roger Perry
05-26-2010, 12:43 PM
According to rasmussenreports.com Obama's poll numbers continue to drop today reaching a new low. How long will the Congress continue to support his Socialist programs? At this rate he may very well become the most unpopular president in history.

Not as long as George W. (dumbya) Bush remains as the 43rd president of the u.s. in the history books.

M&K's Retrievers
05-26-2010, 01:02 PM
Not as long as George W. (dumbya) Bush remains as the 43rd president of the u.s. in the history books.

Hell, Roger, obama has Bush and even Carter in his rear view mirror in that regard. Anyway it's nice to know your in the 23% who think he's doing a bang up job.

ducknwork
05-27-2010, 07:12 AM
Geez Louise...I don't know whether to laugh or cry out of pity right now...:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
05-27-2010, 07:23 AM
Well, Gallup puts him with an approval rating of 47%, which is one of the lowest ratings and this point in his term than almost any President. Only two Presidents have had lower ratings five months into their second year: Carter and Reagan.

M&K's Retrievers
05-27-2010, 09:10 AM
Well, Gallup puts him with an approval rating of 47%, which is one of the lowest ratings and this point in his term than almost any President. Only two Presidents have had lower ratings five months into their second year: Carter and Reagan.

We know how history looks at both of them. obama is a lot closer to Carter than Reagan.