What’s amazing about this to me is $600 billion or so for a universal healthcare spending program that hasn’t been developed yet.  I would like healthcare reform, but this is irresponsible and reckless to me.  While I initially respected Pres Obama for his work ethic and principles—I think this puts it over the edge.  I know many of you on this site are thrilled with this and him in general, but at this time of crisis—this was the wrong way to approach it.  If he had come up with a program, approached it methodically and presented to the American people; I would probably still hate it, but that would have been the right thing to do.  Instead he is packaging this is such a way to take advantage of America in crisis. I’m sure you all thought Bush did the same thing with the war. 

But I had hoped to respect Pres Obama, but he’s losing my respect fast. 

Hi Deb, Thanks for sending the website—obviously since this site is for universal healthcare it’s a bit biased.  So I’m guessing for many of these statistics, I could find one that counters it.  But for what I do know, the "top then problems with hsa’s."  Keep in mind there are exceptions—low income that just can’t afford any policy and really sick people.  Some of this is just inaccurate.  Here’s a few things: 

HSAs do nothing to increase access or reduce the number of uninsured. **They COULD increase if people would buy these policies—this makes no sense.  The policies (at least in TN) are affordable—if you prioritize healthcare for your family. 

HSAs are combined with limited, high deductible health plans, exposing consumers to high out-of-pocket costs which leads to rationing based on ability to pay. **This means you have to save money to help take care of your family—it’s called an emergency fund.  The great thing is you keep this money if you don’t spend it, you get a tax credit, you spend it tax free—no taxes on it ever. 

HSAs encourage consumers to gamble with their health.  **This is your decision.  If you care about your health, you’ll go to the doctor (like we do). 

HSAs discourage prevention. Patients are more likely to forego primary and preventive care, and to delay other needed care. **The policy we have and have looked at lately—they all have preventative care provisions—a $20 copay for well visits, vaccinations, manmograms, etc. 

HSAs deplete funds from the insurance risk pool. While the poor and sick quickly deplete any HSA funds, the rich and healthy retain their unspent money which would have previously gone into the pool to help subsidize care for the sick.  **Using the word "rich" is class warfare—shame on them.  You keep your own money to take care of your family’s health—is that wrong?

HSA rules about what they can cover and what expenses apply to the deductible are so complicated that Bruce Bodaken, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California, said he can’t understand his own plan. **We have BCBS of TN and they are just like other plans—laid out easy to understand and I’m not a CEO.  And besides we can take the money in our HSA and pay for over-the-counter purchases—aspirin, children’s medicine, etc. 

HSAs amount to another tax break for the wealthy who have already been showered with tax breaks by the Bush Administration. The right to pay medical expenses with pre-tax income is worth a lot more to high-income individuals than to low income people who lack the ability to place the maximum permitted amount in their savings accounts. **Talk about class warfare—this would be tough for a very low income—but not for lower middle and middle income. 

This could be a solution, but I’m guessing it won’t be because it doesn’t matter what I say—it matters what Obama wants at this point. 

Hello—I can always count on you to set me straight :-)  and I appreciate your research.  I would say though that the AP may not always be the best source.  Look at what US News and World Report says about infant mortality rate:

A 2006 article in & World Report">U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[4] And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

With that said, you are right—our healthcare system is bloated and a mess.  I don’t know what kind of healthcare you have, but we pay for our own.  It’s high deductible.  We have saved our money (not bought other things we would have liked) to have our deductible ready if we have a catastrophe.  With that in mind, I know the system really well and I’m starting to see some things that could be accomplished.  Absolute transparency of prices—I get the most blank looks when I ask what something will cost me.  Most people do not ask this question or care—because there insurance will pay.  Better alliances with private companies for medicare and medicaid—with absolute proof of need.  More places like Mercy Children’s Clinic in Franklin, TN.  http://www.mercychildrensclinic.org/ They provide healthcare for every child that needs it.  Interstate access to health insurance.  It’s crazy how restrictive it is.  Here’s where I’m for federal laws—laws to protect those that get really sick and access for insurance for them. 

Having the government "take over" will burden our government and the taxpayers, and cause new problems. 

The government should tackle health care reform, but not look at themselves as the total solution. 

By the way, 3 months is not a very short maternity leave.  I realize some can’t take it, but most don’t because they don’t want to scrimp and save for 3 months—they want their cable tv.  (There are always exceptions.)

Belinda, It certainly was a good speech, but unfortunately he’s saying one thing and doing the same old thing.  Case in point—the stimulus package.  There were earmarks and it there is billions of dollars spent where there it looks as though there will be few jobs.  I would have like to have seen a detailed breakout of the jobs each program would generate. 

I didn’t see Jindal, but it’s hard to beat Pres Obama at a speech.  He is no celebrity, but I have heard people on here use words like prophetic (that was you!  :-) ) and it conjures up a little more than a mere man. 

I don’t think anyone will be surprised when he’s re-elected 4 years from now.  An incumbent president with a big following.  The Republicans need to be ready for 8 years from now.  For me, I’d like to see one Pres represent all people—including the other party.  Pres Bush didn’t do and so far, neither is Pres Obama.  If he did, then he wouldn’t talk about putting the taxes more heavily on the top 2%.  I’m not in that bracket, but I’d love to be so that I could help more people in need—but not through taxes, but through charity. 

Your niece is a doll! 

Finally, Liz, some sanity on this site.  My daughter (in kindergarten) gets a 6 week progress report.  This is Pres Obama’s 30 day progress report and she’s right.  Tons of new debt with lots of questionable programs. I would have like to have seen details of the jobs that each program was going to generate and the return on investment.  And they didn’t do that—I wonder why? Yes, he inherited this mess—but he asked to take it on. 

It was a good speech—albeit—it was never under debate whether Pres Obama was a good speaker or not.  People, this was a conservative speech—but so far they have delivered liberal policies.  I believe he wants all this to happen, but I’ll praise him if he can actually lead a government to do all these lofty things with no government waste.  It’s never happened—it never will.  Government is not efficient.  That’s why we should leave as much as we can in the private sector. 

Also, how is taxing the people MORE that provide jobs, funding for innovation, most of the taxes a good thing?  This is punishing those people for living the American dream.  And Pres Obama doesn’t "get that."  I’m one of the 95%, but I think by ALL Americans paying taxes they are contributing their part—now that is the American way. 

As for healthcare, we all—even the conservative ones—want people to get good healthcare.  I’d like to see the government/private enterprise come up with a private sector solution—with a safety net for those that absolutely can’t afford it.  This will teach people to be responsible, save money for emergencies and take responsibility for their families.  For a healthy family, high deductible healthcare is cheap.  It’s less than $100 for both of my children.  If you make $60K a year and cannot proritize less than $100 a month for your children, then there is a problem.  $60k is not a lot of money for a family, but I’m guessing most of those families have cable, go out to eat, cell phones, etc.  You get the picture.  But it’s too easy to let the government handle it for you.  And I always ask—if universal health care is so great—why does everyone come here for quality healthcare?  Why do the doctors come here to work?  Why do people come here from Canada for MRI’s?  Sure they can drop in if there child has a cold, but what if there is cancer lurking and you can’t get an MRI for months?  It’s great to "help" people—but have you noticed how when you give children lots of things, they become less thankful and want more?  It’s the same way with adults…

Marlo Thomas scoffed at Pres Bush’s $600 rebate check per person in a blog on 5.2.08.  Now Pres Obama is going to give us $400.  Besides the $8 a day comment, I haven’t heard the ladies giving him a hard time about that.  Some of these ladies that run this site are brilliant, but so biased sometimes it hurts their credibility.  In this case, it’s beans both ways and it’s not going to initiate a ton of spending. 

And it may be nice, but it’s just socialism when the government gives someone $8000 to buy a home.  Or they pay for mortgages for folks who re-financed and now can’t afford the variable rates.  I KNOW, there are people who have lost their jobs, have medical expenses, or some other tragedy in their lives—give them help.  The others should learn that when you overextend yourselves, then you pay for it.  And that would be a fantastic lesson for all of us.  I’ve paid it before.  And I didn’t live in my first owned place until I was 33, after I had saved and saved for a downpayment on a townhome.  American’s are not owed a home (or cable, or cell phones, or nice furniture, etc.). 

Thank you, Liz—Pres Obama has sounded like a totally different person since he left the campaign trail and started the hard job as president.  Is he really that scared or just talking like this to sell this bomb of a stimulus package?  Either way, he’s not who I thought he would be and I didn’t vote for him.  But I still expected more.