Mommysavers › Forums › General Discussion › In the News › If you are NOT voting for Obama in 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you are NOT voting for Obama in 2012 - Page 3

post #21 of 34

Gilligan!

post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliadam View Post

y. I'm more worried about things like budget, national debt, adding of more welfare programs, economy, etc that IS controlled by the legislative body.

This is what I want our presidents and other political leaders focused on. Too many people place too much on hot topic issues like abortion, gay marriage, legalizing drugs, etc. At this current time, I want to elect a person that is capable of fixing the economy and national debt.
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliadam View Post


Actually this isn't true. It is true that's that how republicans are PORTRAYED so everyone believes it. I'm republican (surprise! LOL) and have always been pro choice. I know many who are. I also know many democrats (especially catholics) who are pro life. I think it's a shame that either party is always labeled with such a broad stroke of all of them are the same. I personally don't worry about that issue though since that is an issue that would be decided by the Supreme Court and not the legislative body. I'm more worried about things like budget, national debt, adding of more welfare programs, economy, etc that IS controlled by the legislative body.


When I said that republicans are pro-life, I should have been clearer and said that the candidates running for office usually run on a pro-life platform (at least the ones I've seen have).  Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney all have their pro-life stances mentioned on their websites.  It's an important issue to me because their stance on this issue tells me what type of people they'll appoint to the Supreme Court (if one of the current members retires during the president's term) to try to get Roe v. Wade overturned.  Like Melsb said either in this thread or another thread--it's issues like this that muddy the water and distract people from the real issues facing our country.  Abortion was legalized in this country 40 years ago and shouldn't even be an issue now.

 

I realize that not all republicans (not the ones running for office, just people who are republicans in general) are pro-life like not all democrats are pro-choice.

 

post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starlite View Post


When I said that republicans are pro-life, I should have been clearer and said that the candidates running for office usually run on a pro-life platform (at least the ones I've seen have).  Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney all have their pro-life stances mentioned on their websites. 

 

 


The issue I have is they spend all this time with these platforms but then do nothing with them. It's just a dangle to get certain voters. Show me what your ideas to fix the economy and get people working. You aren't going to really do anything about the social issues (besides maybe the SC example) so don't waste my time flapping your jaws on it.

 

I guess what I would love to see a candidate look into is why the cost of healthcare is so high. The problem isn't necessarily can't afford some type of healthcare/insurance. It's the fact that it is so high to begin with that prices people and businesses out. I don't know if that makes total sense but I figure if insurance cost half as much as it does now that is better than a tax break for a business really. I read this great washington post piece that made me think about the healthcare thing. So for me solving this issue along with the economy are my biggest concerns for any president.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html

 

post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicalmommy View Post


I guess what I would love to see a candidate look into is why the cost of healthcare is so high. The problem isn't necessarily can't afford some type of healthcare/insurance. It's the fact that it is so high to begin with that prices people and businesses out. I don't know if that makes total sense but I figure if insurance cost half as much as it does now that is better than a tax break for a business really. I read this great washington post piece that made me think about the healthcare thing. So for me solving this issue along with the economy are my biggest concerns for any president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html

Well healthcare will be cheaper for some people, but for people like me who has healthcare already, I will probably get less coverage at more cost. Who do you think is going to cover the cost of the additional people the government wants to insure? That's right....people who actually PAY taxes (which as we all know is only about 50% of the population at this time).
Also, for those looking at LOWERING the national debt, this sure as heck isn't the answer. I read the other day (I've already mentioned this on another thread) that socialized medicine will cost us an ADDITIONAL trillion dollars in debt and we're already running over a trillion a year in additional debt and the healthcare costs will be ON TOP of that trillion in debt we're already adding. Very scary to me. Has anyone heard of Greece? If not, you should educate yourself on it.
post #26 of 34

I totally agree that socialized medicine is probably not the best solution but the whole healthcare for profit is not so great either. I don't have any solutions I just can see what the problems are. It would be interesting to see a complete breakdown of what the cost is for things. Like why I was charged $8 for a couple of tylenol when I was in the hospital. How much of that is the pills, how much of that is the nurses 2mins and how much of that is whatever else is factored in it.

post #27 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicalmommy View Post

I totally agree that socialized medicine is probably not the best solution but the whole healthcare for profit is not so great either. I don't have any solutions I just can see what the problems are. It would be interesting to see a complete breakdown of what the cost is for things. Like why I was charged $8 for a couple of tylenol when I was in the hospital. How much of that is the pills, how much of that is the nurses 2mins and how much of that is whatever else is factored in it.

Some of it is the secretaries who have to take the doctor's orders off the chart and send an order to pharmacy. some of it it the pharmacists who actually dispense the medicine into bottles or envelopes. some of it is for the personnel who transport the medication to the hospital unit where the patient is located. Some of it is for the nurses who dispense it. It's not like going into a kitchen cabinet and getting a tylenol out of a big bottle someone keeps there.
post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliadam View Post


Some of it is the secretaries who have to take the doctor's orders off the chart and send an order to pharmacy. some of it it the pharmacists who actually dispense the medicine into bottles or envelopes. some of it is for the personnel who transport the medication to the hospital unit where the patient is located. Some of it is for the nurses who dispense it. It's not like going into a kitchen cabinet and getting a tylenol out of a big bottle someone keeps there.


I guess I can understand that if it was a prescriptive drug. The instance I was thinking of in my case was a nurse came in, asked how i was feeling, mentioned I had a headace, asked if I wanted tylenol, went to the locked cabinet in my room, asked if two was ok then marked it on the computer. It was just a big bottle of tylenol in this case. Of course this is a very very minor example when talking about price oddities and such. The whole point I have with healthcare and insurance is we wouldn't have this problem of people of not having/getting/affording something people feel we should all have/get if it wasn't so expensive to do so. Wouldn't the gov not even need to have obamacare if people could afford care/insurance on their own?

 

post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicalmommy View Post



I guess I can understand that if it was a prescriptive drug. The instance I was thinking of in my case was a nurse came in, asked how i was feeling, mentioned I had a headace, asked if I wanted tylenol, went to the locked cabinet in my room, asked if two was ok then marked it on the computer. It was just a big bottle of tylenol in this case. Of course this is a very very minor example when talking about price oddities and such. The whole point I have with healthcare and insurance is we wouldn't have this problem of people of not having/getting/affording something people feel we should all have/get if it wasn't so expensive to do so. Wouldn't the gov not even need to have obamacare if people could afford care/insurance on their own?

Hmm...well, I haven't worked in a hospital in a long time, but we didn't keep ANY meds like that around for just any old patient. They had to be ordered per patient but I suppose it could be different now.

Of course the other question in your post is an interesting one too. Obamacare will MANDATE people buy health insurance, so I guess some people are logically asking if they can't afford it now, how will they be able to then? If people do not get coverage either through an employer or through buying it on their own they will have to pay a penalty/fine. For those truly poor they will get some assistance up to free coverage (of course many of those people ALREADY get free health care through assistance programs), but for those who are currently working and have income, but no insurance, they will be forced to buy regardless.

My own personal opinion is that having watched health care change for a long time and the addition of regulation upon regulation, is that the MORE regulation is added, the HIGHER the cost goes. So I just don't believe for one minute that the government who has a HORRENDOUS record of administering social welfare programs will be MORE cost effective. In my opinion it will just drive up the cost MORE and we'll just be taxed and taxed and taxed to continue to pay all the pencil pushers that are reviewing every bit of minutia they can in the process of trying to manage the healthcare of every single person in america.
post #30 of 34

In my case I was in a birthing suite with things like tylenol, midol and other basic otc available for the nurses to grab easily.

 

I don't know if I would trust a gov. to manage the whole healthcare program either I would just prefer someone try to figure out why our country is paying far more in healthcare than other countries and yet the care is the same. I whole heartedly disagree with the requiring people to get coverage in obamacare. When they first talked about it I thought, hmm a way for under/non insured to get health insurance. Sounds like a good idea but then what it became was a huge mess that I couldn't even begin to understand and was left scratching my head. SO I guess I want to see a president candidate who would bring some ideas so that health insurance/care doesn't keep skyrocketing to the point  no one can afford it. At that point the profits of many companies will drop and maybe then we will see some change. As sad as that is.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: In the News
Mommysavers › Forums › General Discussion › In the News › If you are NOT voting for Obama in 2012