For the 2010 election season, industries have ramped up their political campaign contributions–hoping to also ramp up their influence. This year, lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans, as well as the five largest health insurance companies, have given three times as much money to Republican candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The question many may have is: why did health insurers donate money to Democrats in the first place? For the most part, lobbyists do not have specific political ideologies; they will donate to whatever party they believe can most succeed in bringing about their goals. Last year, President Barack Obama was triumphantly inagurated, and the Democratic party controlled (albeit narrowly) both houses of Congress. In other words, if anything was going get done, it would have to get past Democrats.

Healthcare reform was always one of the Obama administration’s first priorities. Insurance companies contributed to Democratic politicians in order to make them more sympathetic to their interests in the debate. In many respects, they succeeded–insurers are largely responsible for helping torpedo the government-run public option supported by most liberals. They also managed to retain the lucrative individual mandate, which supposedly leads to more affordable health insurance by bringing more customers into the pool.

However, the political climate is changing. The Tea Party movement has fired up many conservatives, and they have been speaking at the polls by defeating moderate GOP incumbents in their primaries in favor of far-right candidates. Democrats are predicted to lose their majority in Congress, so interest groups must get in good with the potential new members of Congress, so that they will “owe them one”.

At the same time, President Obama’s popularity ratings have been slipping. In order to shore up support, he has begun painting the health insurance industry as a villain, as opposed to an ally. The Department of Health and Human Services is tasked with writing specific guidelines the industry must abide by, and there are some indications that those policy predictions will be stricter.

-
About the Author:
Yamileth Medina is an up and coming expert on Health Insurance and Healthcare Reform. She aims to help people realize that they can find affordable health insurance right now. Yamileth lives in Miami, FL.
Article Source

My recent writings have focused on the problems in the health care system and why the Democrats don’t seem to be making things any better. It seems that despite their large majority and control in both houses of Congress and the White House have not given them the courage to push for the reforms they were voted in to create. What’s worse, is that instead of passing real reform, or even doing nothing, they seem to be allowing and backing many of the issues that the Republicans are bringing to the table. This comes even when the Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in working with the Democrats to make real reform.

The fact that no Republican in the Senate is open to a public option for health care shows that as a caucus they will not help the Democrats, or anyone except themselves.

Meanwhile, in recent days, some of the Republicans’ favorite issues like anti-abortion reform, abstinence only education and guns are gaining momentum.

On the abortion front, while Republicans refuse to pass any meaningful health care reform, they have decided that if any reform passes, it will include restrictions on abortion procedures, even if the person has private coverage. This move is almost as ridiculous as the sudden concern for Medicare from Republicans. For 40 years, Republicans have railed against health care in the same way that they are now criticizing the public option. They don’t want government intervention, and they think the free markets will be hurt. Now with abortion, they don’t want the government involved in health care, but they do want the government to regulate what a woman does with her body. Democratic representatives need to stand up against this move and not allow an abortion issue to affect the ultimate outcome of health care reform. For one, women have the right to do what they want with their body. For another, 45 million people lack health insurance, and 45,000 die every year because of their inadequate coverage. An issue like abortion that doesn’t affect anyone except the woman and possibly her immediate friends or family, should be left to her, not legislated on.

But instead, the Republicans push forward, with support from their base.

To make the abortion issue that much more enraging, while Republicans say that women should not have the right to control their own bodies, they are also saying that children should not have the right to be taught comprehensive sex education. So, Republicans apparently feel that the only way to teach kids about sex is to not teach them anything substantive at all, and then if there happens to be a pregnancy, possibly because of this lack of education, the woman is out of luck.

The Senate Finance Committee, after rejecting two public option proposals the other day, voted to support abstinence only education. Led by Republican Orrin Hatch, the amendment that reinstates $50 million in support of abstinence only education. Two of the Democratic Senators, Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad, who voted against the public option apparently felt the need to support this amendment. Apparently, they feel like a person should not be allowed to learn about the realities of pregnancies and STDs, but in the very real chance that there is a pregnancy or disease as a result of sex, there will be no quality affordable health care coverage available.

Once again, the Republicans, without a majority in either House of Congress or control of the White House, are managing to push forward their agenda, and the Democrats are not fighting back.

And if the Republicans have not been successful enough in continuing their agenda in Congress, they are also making gains in the judiciary. The Supreme Court just accepted to hear a case about a gun ban in Chicago. The case has not yet been argued, but if it goes anything like the Heller case did in DC, where the gun ban was overturned, even more guns will be allowed on the streets of an already violent city. Since the Heller case dealt with federal land, the Chicago case would be the first time that the Supreme Court rules on local gun bans. This could open up the possibilities for right wing gun nuts to have more access to dangerous weapons that are responsible for countless murders across the US.

Speaking of gun rights, we are reminded of seven years ago when the DC sniper killed ten people at random. Now the New York Times details how the Congress has done very little to reform any gun laws, and if anything, has further protected the gun industry from any Civil charges that could have come from the DC sniper case.

Despite the Democrats bending over backwards to let the Republican agenda through, even when the Republicans have shown no interest in bipartisanship with the Democrats, there may be at least one Democrat who has had enough.

Rep. Alan Grayson from Florida’s 8th District recently charged that the Republicans’ solution to health care is that people should not get sick. And if someone does get sick, their health care solution is that the person should die quickly. Finally a Democrat has grown a backbone and stood up to the right! The Republicans do not have any true plan for health care reform. They have no true plan to cover the uninsured or lower health care costs or improve quality. Rep. Grayson is finally someone who is calling them out on this point.

Some Republicans were upset by Rep. Grayson’s charges and demanded an apology. Rep. Grayson apologized, but not for what he said, but instead to the 45,000 people each year who die because they don’t have adequate care. He apologized for the Republicans, and once again stood up against any games that the Republicans tried to play.

The Republicans had one more chance at Rep. Grayson when he went on the Situation Room on CNN. Again, instead of backing down, Rep. Grayson stood strong and continued to talk about his beliefs for the need for true health care. Surely the Republicans will come out and attack him more, but it is important for Rep. Grayson to maintain his aggressiveness and his colleagues should join in. This is just what those of us who support health care reform have been waiting to see.

Forty-five million people need health care coverage, the rest of us need better coverage. All of us need less of the Republican talking points, and finally Rep. Grayson seems to be leading a charge against the Republicans. Let’s just hope it is not too little too late.

Sincerely,
Sam Edelstein

Edelstein’s Web site is http://www.randomsamthoughts.blogspot.com

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/stand-up-to-the-republicans-1292278.html

Sen. Max Baucus said the public option offered a great opportunity to “hold insurance companies’ feet to the fire”. Then he voted against two amendments that included the public option. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Well it seems in the political world it does. Apparently, because Sen. Baucus doesn’t believe the Senate has 60 votes to pass a health care reform bill, he is not supporting the bill either. Of course, we don’t yet know how much support a heath care reform bill with a public option would have, but in order to get to 60 votes, Sen. Baucus’s support would be essential. Without his support, it is a virtual certainty that the bill will not get the desired 60 votes.

This is not the first time that a politician, or the electorate, has refused to back a bill or a candidate because they did not think there was enough support for the bill to pass or candidate to win. But guess what? It is really difficult for bills to pass and candidates to win elections when people don’t support them.

President Obama, while on the campaign trail said that he originally supported a single payer health care system, and in a world where health care policies could be rewritten, it would be the best system. But, he says now, we are too entrenched in our system and the country isn’t ready for that much change. This coming from the “change” President. In reality though, Obama taking this point of view not only took any discussion for single-payer off the table, but also hurt chances to get a public option because he had already conceded so much before negotiations for reform even began. Maybe if he hadn’t assumed that single-payer didn’t have a chance before actually giving the public a chance to voice their opinion, we would have had a better system already. As it turns out, almost every poll shows a majority of people support a government run system of some kind.

During the 2008 campaign, I was disappointed with all the Democratic candidates for president, and decided to vote third party. When I spoke with friends and acquaintances about this decision, they said I was throwing away my vote because the third party candidates would have no chance to win. I would reply that of course they didn’t have a chance to win if people weren’t voting for them simply because they didn’t think they had a chance to win.

It is time that progressives in this country started standing up for their beliefs no matter if the belief is popular or not. Who cares if it doesn’t seem like the idea doesn’t have majority support? In most cases, it actually probably does have the necessary support, and if it doesn’t, all change has to start from somewhere.

There was a time in this country where the majority were in favor of slavery, then that thankfully ended because people’s opposition got louder and louder. Then their opposition to segregation got louder. Then the opposition to Vietnam, then support for women’s rights. Now there is a push for gay rights that is quickly finding itself as the majority opinion. Health care reform is there too.

We need to stand up for our beliefs, and tell our representatives that it is not their job to vote on what they think can pass, it is their job to vote on what we, and they, think is right. 

Sen. Baucus says, ”my first job is to get this bill across the finish line. No one shows me how to get to 60 votes with a public option.” I say, “who cares!?”

The people have already expressed their support for a public option, and if the Congress refuses to pass true reform, we’ll let them know how we feel about it. We already let the Republicans know how we felt about their running the country, just like we let slave owners and segregationists know that they were no longer welcome.

Stand up Sen. Baucus, and all the rest of the Senate, and support what your constituents support. Don’t support what fringe right wing media and huge corporations support.

Sincerely,
Sam Edelstein

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/stand-up-for-your-beliefs-1292299.html

Sincerely,
Gene Eplett

The renowned American scientist, Ray Kurzweil, claims human beings could become immortal as early as the year 2029! He says advancements in nanotechnology and a detailed and increased understanding of the working of a human body could enable human beings to become immortal.

He says humans could be replacing their vital organs through nanotechnologies, which will be available in the market in just 20 years time. His claims are well supported by the fact that artificial pancreases and neural implants are already available. His theory is called the Law of Accelerating Returns. He believes humans will, in near future , have the necessary software to reprogramme their own bodies, and hence, halt or reverse their ageing process.

In his article published in The Sun, Mr. Kurzweil also claims many other tasks that will be completed by humans with astonishing ease and accuracy. He says that in 20 years time, a man will be able to:

* do an olympic sprint for 15 minutes without even breathing once.
* drive to the doctor and tell him that he just had a heart attack and needs treatment. During all this time, tiny blood bots will keep them alive!
* write books within minutes.
* go scuba-diving for four hours without oxygen.
* go into virtual-reality mode where nanobots will shut down brain signals and take himself wherever he wants to go. (Kurzweil believes virtual sex will become common after humans get hold of this piece of technologies.

And to put it all in the American scientist’s own words, “we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs”

Sincerely,
Jabran Kundi

Kundi is the author of the blog Kundi’s Blog.
He also writes for a soccer blog English Premier League

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/immortal-humans-just-20-years-away-1268874.html

AARP has it wrong and NARP-National Association of Retired People have it right. Why does AARP think a government take over of health care could possibly be good for seniors? 

I am one senior citizen that thinks AARP sold us out. I thought AARP was supposed to be for seniors, now I think they are for the politicians. AARP came out in favor the government takeover of health care (they don‘t call it that, I call it that). I read AARP’s list of reasons for support of new legislation and it sounds very lofty and idealistic. “We all have a role to play individuals, providers, purchasers, insurers, and the government.” What role do we “senior individuals” have to play? Go home and die because the government eliminates health care services we now receive. The one thing AARP should have said is that the government should not run or control the health care system. To begin with, they say our healthcare system is broken but it is not. We have the best health care systems in the world. Americans do not leave this country to get better health care in another country. It is the other way around, world leaders come here for medical treatment. AARP should have stood up for their 40 million members and said no to the government takeover of our health care system.

AARP sells hundreds of millions of dollars of medical insurance to seniors. They were afraid of losing that revenue and made a wink and nod agreement with the politicians. Presently there about 1,300 health care insurance companies in the US. It is estimated that number will be reduced to about 50 in the first few years of the new plan. Does AARP really think they can trust any of the politicians in Washington? Did you see how 200 years of law was thrown out the window when it came to the government takeover of General Motors and Chrysler? Ask the 100,000 individual secured bondholders that were screwed out of 70% of their secured money if they trust the politicians. By the way, most of them were seniors. AARP and the insurance companies will be shocked in a few years when the government tells them there will only be one health insurance plan run by the government and their services will not be needed. I do not think the Republicans or the Democrats in Washington can be trusted. Politics has become only about “what’s in it for me right now” and control, not about what is best for the American people. The politicians love their power. Do you really feel AARP is looking out for you? 

The government really does not care about providing good health care in America for everyone; they care about the government-running health care in America. It is about government control of another major section of the economy and your life. If all they really wanted to do, was guarantee health care for everyone it would only cost between $29 to $40 billion extra over today’s costs; and the rest of us could continue with the good health care we have now without the government control. It could all be paid for out of stopping even part of the $200 billion in medical fraud each year. If they did that one thing, there would be no need to raise taxes or have the government take over our health care system. Tell that to your politicians. If the government takes over health care, they will control about sixty percent of the US economy. They already control the Banks, Insurance (AIG), Auto Industry (GM & Chrysler), Mortgage business (Fannie Mae & Freddy Mack), and now they want to take over health care. If you are a senior citizen and the government takes over health   care, they are going to tell us at what age we live or die. Maybe you are like me and had heart bypass surgery at age 58 and I will probably need it again at age 75 (because it usually only last 15 or 20 years). In England with their government run health care, you cannot get a stint or heart bypass surgery if you are over 59. If that happens here a guess they will tell me, I am too old because it is not cost effective for someone my age, and not covered by Medicare, I will just have to go home and die.

After they get us all on the government plan they can make us do anything they want not necessarily, what is the best for you to live longer. I am 69 years old (the same age as Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House). I think you seniors and I are entitled to the same health care opportunities as she and Ted Kennedy. These politicians will not have the same health care insurance rules we on Medicare are being asked to accept. Under the new plan if you are Ted Kennedy’s age, you could not get the brain surgery he received. What is wrong with what the government is trying to do is, limiting how your Doctor can treat you. Moreover, what is worse, if they say it is not covered by Medicare it will be illegal for you to go out and pay for better treatment out of your own pocket that is just not right?

If these politicians take over health care, your life, and my life just got shorter. This applies to you young people as well. The President’s chief health care policy advisors Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel (brother of Rohm Emanuel the president‘s chief of staff) has written extensively that the elderly should get less health care. He thinks that incurable illnesses such as dementia should not get continued health care. He says because they no longer contribute to society. Does this apply to Down syndrome babies, badly injured soldiers and to paraplegics as well? He also is a leading proponent of state assisted suicide. He is a very brilliant man but these are not the views most of us here in the United States of America. That sounds more like Nazi Germany back in the late thirties. How does AARP think this kind of thinking is good for seniors?

I do not want anyone coming between my doctor and me. I want my personal doctor telling me what is best for my loved ones and my health, not some Washington Bureaucrat.

I do not want some young person in Washington telling me my 82-year mother cannot receive treatment because it is not covered. Like I just said, even if you have the money to pay for it out of your own pocket it will be against the law. To me that is just not right, it is outrageous, this is not Cuba, China, or Russia this is the United States of America. If you like, the way the government runs the Post Office, the IRS, Social Security, or the way they handled New Orleans during Katrina then get ready for the Government Takeover of Health Care.

One of the staff from a Senator’s office out of Nebraska said… If they cannot get what they want right now, they will take anything they can and change it to what they want in a couple of years. They actually want a single payer plan with rationed health care. We seniors cannot let this happen.   

I have called every Congressman, Senator and the White House letting them know that I do not want the government to take over health care and I and my fellow Americans will vote against anyone that votes for it. You may ask why I called all of them. The other day I saw a Senator on TV that said he was getting calls from all over the country and he appreciated hearing the pulse of the nation. He thought it was a good idea to contact each of them and let them know what people all across the country are thinking. 

I will make a prediction… If our politicians vote in the government take over of health care there will be a voters revolt, a nationwide outcry of “Throw the bums out of Washington.”

The administration is very smooth about how they promote the government take over of health care. When the Clinton’s tried, the governments take over of healthcare, they called it healthcare reform, and it died. These politicians started that way but have changed what they call it. Now they call it health insurance reform. It is the same thing. They are just trying to blame the insurance companies for high prices and divert your attention away from their real agenda to take over. The government wants to take over health care and have control over your life and your death.

The myth is they are trying to sell us the idea the system is broken and they can fix it. We all know the truth is we have the best health care in the world, they want to take control, and they will ruin it. People from the United States are not leaving this country to go anywhere else for medical treatment. If our system is so bad, why do Kings and leaders of other countries come here to get medical care? This is all about control and power it is not about giving health care to everyone. Anyone that needs emergency health care can get it right now if you have the money or not. They can call it anything they want but it is about control of your life.

If they once get any kind of government health insurance, life in America will never be the same.They will gradually nudge you into their plan and ultimately make everyone on the government plan (except the politicians and some unions). All of the politicians have private health insurance plans and every December they can choose to change if they want. In the new proposal if you ever for any reason want to switch health insurance you can only go into the government plan, which is just wrong.

All of you young people beware. If you feel like you cannot afford health insurance with your present lifestyle, the government will make you buy it anyway. Health insurance may cost you as much as $6,000 a year and if you do not buy it they may fine you a fine of $3,800 a year. That is just not right. You should be able chose what you think is best for yourself. This universal health care is flawed from the start. There are many ways to reduce health care costs without government control. If the politicians and unions do not switch to the government health insurance plan then you know the politicians have lied to us but by then it will be too late. This is not about either side of politics this is about the lives and well-being of all Americans. God, help us all if this health care passes in any  

Sincerely,
Carl Wheeler

Carl Wheeler~Author and Publisher for Six Saturdays a Week "http://www.sixsaturdaysaweek.com" A web site dedicate to the improvement of the quality of life as we age.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/health-careaarp-has-it-wrongpart-1-1268693.html

In the words of Barack Obama, “All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.”

Mr. Obama and Congress, in the here and now, this statement is relevant. Before, and leading up to, the August congressional recess, congress was in the midst of crafting legislation for reforming the United States health care system.

Adjourning in the midst of a stalemate, Congress recessed only to face a sea of emotions from Americans in town hall meetings across the nation.

To that point, personally, I was, and remain somewhat mixed, confused and unsure about what is being proposed, much like the rest of America. Health care is “the” personal issue that each American has a vested stake in, not only for lowering costs but, rather for it is our body, mind and personal choices we each make for sustained living.

Not withstanding the anger I feel for both sides of the aisle as an independent and former Republican, who voted for President Obama; I write to my fellow countrymen and women, not to stir, provoke or participate in civil unrest or engage in scare tactics but, to exercise your freedom of speech.

As I am doing here, write your senators, congressmen and yes, even the president, to express your concerns, fears and doubts. The greatest part of America is when true debate occurs without bias, special interests or fear of saying the wrong thing politically, isn’t that the true American Spirit?

Debate is what the American citizen has done, whereby expressing his or her point-of-view to their elected representatives.

Express ourselves we did, during the congressional August recess Americans sent in emails, wrote letters, telephoned representatives and showed up for town hall meetings; now, having heard from the American people you represent, Congress, go back to work and quit the partisan bickering.

Not welcomed are scare tactics, special interests or saying an idea is necessarily right or wrong – instead, in the great American spirit, debate, craft and compromise on what is best for the nation as a whole, and not for the (R) or (D) after your respective name.

From news accounts both Democrats and Republicans agree health care is need of reform. Okay, great, debate it! Democrats seek a public option, “to cover 47 million uninsured Americans, create competition and lower costs.”

However, Republicans seek, “tort reform, health savings accounts, across state line insurance competition, tax credits and keeping health care in the private sector.”

Great, Debate and compromise! What Americans don’t need is an additional eights years of (R) and (D) partisans, instead we need our leadership to step up and craft real American legislation.

Sincerely,
Joshua Bunton

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Joshua_Bunton [http://ezinearticles.com/?Health-Care-Debate----Heres-My-Suggestion---Debate!&id=2904874 ]http://EzineArticles.com/?Health-Care-Debate—-Heres-My-Suggestion—Debate!&id=2904874

Let’s take a look at the main parts of the so called Obama health plan:

“Quality, Affordable & Portable Health Coverage For All” (until we run out of money)

1. Obama’s plan follows the typical Democratic health care template by building on existing private and public programs such as employer health insurance, private individual health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. His program most certainly would be a typical inefficient wasteful government program with 65-70% of health care $ being spent on the bureaucratic watch dog tactics of the SEIU.

2. This is unlike the Republican approach that would refashion the private market by providing incentives to encourage a reinvigorated individual health insurance platform focused on personal choice and responsibility by providing MSA giving the individual vs the government control over our individual health care.

Obama’s key components include:

1. Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65. It would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan. Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage.

2. An employer “pay or play” mandate would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan.

3. Requiring all families to cover children through either a private or public health insurance plan. Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP.

4. Obama’s plan would also mandate guaranteed insurability, with minimum comprehensive benefits package such as that required for federal workers,

5. Portability or the ability to take their policy from one job to another when it is purchased through the new Medicare-like public plan or the National Health Insurance Exchange.

6. He would require all providers to participate in the new plan to collect and report data about standards of care, the use of health information medical data based internet medical records technology, and administration.

7. The control and collection of government premiums would be the collection branch of the IRS

My opinion of Obama’s plan is that it would be a disaster to the health of the American people. They would lose their right to choose what care they want for their families and would eventually have their care rationed, even forced into medical directives limiting their options in their senior years. If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it’s free, your taxes will go through the roof

Sincerely,
Dr. WM Wells

http://www.MyStopSmokingNow.info

Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Do-We-Really-Want-Inefficient-Government-Health-Care!&id=2869784

One year after the Wall Street disasters, Business Owners say nothing will be the same. More businesses are going under, due to politicians’ greed. Few companies left must cut jobs, salaries, hours, and benefits! In the end, will probably close!
Doesn’t it concern you that politicians aren’t trying to bring back textile and furniture companies back? With the stroke of their high-dollar pens, they could eliminate Nafta and Cafta!

Obama doesn’t mention drug and Insurance companies are still giving billions to politicians! Shouldn’t this tell you why you can’t buy medicines and insurance? Obama wants Taxpayers to think ‘that people without healthcare will have insurance if politicians proceed with Healthcare plans, take money from the working, and ‘redistributing to the illegitimates’ – the illegitimate terrorists that Taxpayers have been made to support for decades.

This shouldn’t be Americas’ responsibility! Redistributing wealth isn’t the answer! Raising taxes on highest income earners who are private business owners won’t create jobs, just finish bankrupting America! Taxpayers, of all party affiliations and races, should put an end to ‘social and welfare programs’. Constant bickering and getting someone fired isn’t answer?

Obama stated, many times-I quote ‘we’re not going to touch Social Security or Medicare, we’re going to cut waste from social and welfare programs!’ If Obama or any politician wants Taxpayers to believe this rhetoric, we have an ocean in Arizona Desert, we’ll sell them!

Obamas’ constant statements ‘the deficits he inherited’ makes Taxpayers wonder why his ‘Change you an believe in’ isn’t working for anyone except him and other politicians? Obamas’ latest words to $1.38 trillion deficit – I’m quoting “we’ll move forcefully to get deficits under control ONCE the nations’ recession has ended!” Really? His extravagant spending habits aren’t going to end and neither is recession until Taxpayers hand out pink slips!

Sincerely,
Shirley deLong
The author is a Jamestown, NC Artist, Activist and Environmentalist. Author of several published articles. Honorary Chairperson, NRCC, for State of North Carolina. Nominated by White House. http://shirleydelongartist.com

President Obama’s healthcare proposal speech ended with additional confusion and a greater division between the parties. His package has enough layers to cover all citizens of this nation with adequate medical insurance. One question that concerns conservatives is how this can be implemented in a short time span. Obama cleared some of the haze surrounding that in his speech to Congress earlier this week. The President said his plan will be fully operational at the end of his first term in office. This statement sounds as though he will be headed back to the White House for a second term to tie up any lose ends on this proposal.

Conservatives are of the opinion that all insured individuals will eventually opt for the government insurance coverage because the premiums will be less than private pay or company plans. President Obama’s speech to Congress was too lengthy to be understood by viewers. He has some very sound ideas but when the Congressional heckler in the audience called out “liar” it proves something is amiss. The public is not privy to the behind the scenes debates but it was evident during his speech that Vice President Biden and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were visibly unhappy by the speech’s reception in Congress.

President Obama tried valiantly to make headway and cut to the chase in his proposal but he only repeated what the public already knows. Anyone who has insurance will keep it and those who are without any form of insurance will be assigned to the government form of medical insurance. This is a work in progress and Obama made a noble attempt in cleaning up some of the issues.

Would you like to get more information on Obama Speech healthcare? Visit us online at Article Directory Online to get more articles on Health Care.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/president-obamas-speech-on-healthcare-1223738.html