Can we afford no new healthcare policy?
The congress seems determined to pass some healtcare legislation whether good or bad depending on who you ask. With costs skyrocketing as much as 100% in the last three years for some, can we afford to say no and wait until another administration takes a stab at it?
From one side, from what I can tell- the most incredible underlying cause for constant rising healthcare costs is greedy profiteers of "insurance" business and the 'homeless' people who represent about 12.5% or 43.75 Million, who go into a hospitals or clinics and receive treatment because they are sick, and unable to pay for any of the services they receive.
The 'homeless' have no place to live, so they are outdoors and exposed to the elements, year round. They eat food from wherever possible, which results in sickness.
This sole underlying cause has increased the growing need for "insurance" businesses to raise their costs, which in turn raises the costs on all healthcare providers. Thus, every person who has healthcare coverage is to make up the difference.
Again, greed does play a part of it, but in order for a business to remain profitable, it must maintain specific margins above their expenses.If the choice is between bad and worse, yes we can wait. None of the proposals before Congress does anything about the real problem. Until we get legislation that deals with the core problem of healthcare cost, instead of ripping someone off, we can wait for a better Congress and administration.
I don't think we can wait. I do believe it will soon be a question that will influence this recovery and any other one for that matter.
How can financing something through debt, help a recovery? That kind of thinking is insane when you stop to thing about it. Do you even know what our society needs in order to begin an economic recovery?
Yes we need jobs and the ability to pay for what we use. Our credit hungry society has been putting it on the card to make up the difference.
Everything is financed through debt! We borrow against the future but with healthcare there has to be a base. Sorry again but public option creates the ability to pay it back. The freedom to choose your own healthcare sets you up to run out of money.You offer no proof, you just keep saying the same thing over and over again. How in the world does the public option give you the chance to pay anything back? You really aren't making any sense, you know it.
Well I could say the same as you. For some odd reason you think greed is the answer to our problem. Greed is what got us here. A free market is fine but when the competition is choked off by big business and the posture they employ there is nothing freeing in the result. Small business has its's hands tied with the ever increasing healthcare costs and there is only so much you can build into your price to cover it. We are competing with business' whose countries pick up the tab for the healthcare and it is reflected in their bottom line pricing. I would suggest you don't make any common sense and promote a failed policy that is crippling this countries commerce in the world market. There is only a short period of time where you can sell people pie in the sky rhetoric.
I offer all sorts of proof, you apparently don't bother to read what I link to, so why bother. You think you're right a priori so there is no need for you to deal with pesky things like facts.
You seem to continually make the mistake of confusing free market capitalism with corporate fascism. We have a corporatist economy right now and that's where most of our problems lie. Do yourself a favor and challenge your assumptions: http://mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdfDo yourself a favor and connect the dots. Through corporate greed you create a fraternity and the common good is control. Control of the free market system through buy outs and pay offs is the method and destroying the competition the prize. Grow up and think beyond your theories and Polyanna philosophies. If you want to argue book learning and real world conditions you can go join the elitist and theorize your way to the poor house.
My God, you really don't get it do you? Buyouts are just a function of the market, buyouts don't mean that you lose control of the free market system. Look at Google. They dominate the search engine market. There is little competition in the search engine market because the market is mature. Google has figured out what people want and gives it to them, hence the popularity.
Now you do have a point about payoffs. Who do the companies payoff? Regulators and Congressmen. That is the problem with government oversight or control of anything. If you can figure out a way in which you can set up a government agency to run or oversee something without that agency being infiltrated by the very people they are set up to oversee, or if you can tell me how you can get people who know squat about a particular subject and teach them to oversee a something like, the banking system, let's say; then I'd like to hear it.
Again, you make a priori statements and personal attacks instead of arguing the points. I'd expect better, but it would seem you're not as sure of yourself as you'd like us to believe.
Of course, we've done fine without it. The question should be can we afford a new healthcare policy? It is supposed to increase our debt by a couple of trillion $. Have you considered what our debt maintenance costs would be once interest rates increase some time in the future?
Oh, where to begin... one inaccuracy after another.
The rising costs to business to support the current system is breaking down and the co pays are going up. If you compound the 100% increase in medical insurance out a few years how long can it last.
Approximately 30 to 50 million people are estimated to not have health insurance and rely on public funding to pay for costly procedures that the taxpayers have the tab to pick up. With the recent influx of unemployed entering the ranks and losing their cobra benefits in the coming months the uninsured will blow out what little money we have.
Maybe the system has worked fine in the past but does that mean we should do nothing with the indicators showing a disaster ahead?I see they have brainwashed you rhamson. 30-50 million people without health insurance? Don't include the illegal aliens, they skew the numbers.
Okay if the numbers are skewed, that does not negate the fact that The cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade. This increase has made it much more difficult for businesses to continue to provide coverage to their employees and for those workers to afford coverage themselves.
If this continues how will the insured be able to fend for themselves?So think, if premiums increase it's because costs have increased. What makes you think that costs will not increase under a government health care situation? Add the increasing medical costs and the cost to maintain the debt, especially when interest rates increase, you really think we're going to afford health care or do anything once our taxes go up to pay for this program?
Bingo! There is no proof the proposed bill will reduce costs. Unless you reduce costs, it doesn't matter what legislation is passed that supposedly covers everyone...the situation will continue to deteriorate.
I say that it's time to encourage people to accept more responsibility for their own health costs. This is the only way that the system can get rid of the waste present, if individuals are asking how much procedures cost and shopping around for common care. Insurance is for catastrophic events. Everything else should be out of pocket. It will be painful in the short term, but it is truly the only way to fix the system in the long term.
Allowing deregulation of state boundaries will help.Several studies estimate the number of uninsured Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 47 million Americans, or 20 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2008, their latest data available.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) estimated that the percentage of uninsured Americans under age 65 represented 27 percent of the population. According to the MEPS data, nearly 54 million Americans under the age of 65 were uninsured in the first-half of 2007.
A recent study shows that based on the effects of the recession alone (not job loss), it is projected that nearly seven (7) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage between 2008 and 2010. 3 Urban Institute researchers estimate that if unemployment reaches 10 percent, another six (6) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage. Taking these numbers together, it is conceivable that by next year, 57 to 60 million Americans will be uninsured.
The Urban Institute estimates that under a worse case scenario, 66 million Americans will be uninsured by 2019.
Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2007 or 2008 without health coverage.
Where do you want to bite the bullet?As I said it will be painful in the short term. I truly feel sorry for those uninsured who aren't expecting a handout. Mostly those between 50-65 who will find it hardest to obtain insurance.
What I am saying is I have yet to see a plan that makes sense. The whole purpose is to reduce costs. The pols are telling us that is done by insuring everyone, yet their plan still leaves millions out, so it fails on front one from the getgo. How do you cut costs by increasing demand in the system? You don't; it's impossible unless you ration care. If someone can tell me how the new plan addresses this, I'm open to listen.
I posted this yesterday, and no one who supports the plan has responded, so I'll include the link here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/25495?page=2#post472434
It is going to get worse before it gets better, plan or no plan. I don't trust that another government-run program is going to solve the problem.
- Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago
0We can't afford not to say no! This expansion will wreck our economy! Just look at medicare and medicaid and the cost overruns from these entitlement programs. Look at TN which nearly went bankrupt because of health care. Look at MA another state whose cost estimates were so far off that now they have to ration care because they simply can't afford it! Look at our debt now:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Moody's is saying the debt rating of the USA will have to be lowered from AAA this year!!! This has grave implications for our country, for the dollar, for inflation and our economy!
The stimulus bill has done nothing to produce jobs. This bill will further damage the economy and be a job killer. On top of this Obama wants to pass cap and trade, yet another blow to our economy and another job killer. This president is single handedly destroying our nation and this after he gave us so much hope!National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.
With these kind of cost increases how can we not address this issue?
Rhamson what do you read that you are getting these numbers. I'd like to know.
Go to this link to read about it.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
- Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago0
Oh yes, the "greedy" insurance companies which had a 4% profit this year! (Microsoft had a 24% profit)
Oh yes and health care is costing business dearly and isn't sustainable. So government will now tax business 40% that have a health care plan that's considered a "Cadillac" plan. And government will now force young people, and small business, (you know the small business that Obama says creates 65% of the jobs in this country) that don't have insurance to buy it or else they will pay a fine. They will do this and create a huge new bureaucracy that will cost us 1 trillion dollars over the next ten years, which we will pay for now but not get any benefit from before 2013.
Now tell me how is this good for business? How will this make business create jobs and hire people so that they will be insured? How will this lower health care costs?Your supposition that if we could create new jobs and reduce taxes as an answer to the rising cost of health care just does not make sense. The increase far out does the possible benefits your plan can provide.
Due to rising health insurance premiums, many small employers cannot afford to offer health benefits. Companies that do offer health insurance, often require employees to contribute a larger share toward their coverage. As a result, an increasing number of Americans have opted not to take advantage of job-based health insurance because they cannot afford it.
Obama can't change this nor could anybody else with an agreable congress. You just have to have a better answer than no.Hold on! You're saying business can't afford to offer health care but under Obama's plan, they have NO CHOICE! They must offer it or pay a fine!!! Where is the savings??? How does this help business?? Where is the job creation? All this plan does is puts the government in charge of health care and forces their will upon you and me! This bill does NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to lower anyone's costs!! They are just playing a shell game shifting the money around!! You will pay MORE under this plan and you will get less, unless you have nothing now!
The only way you can get control of costs are through collective bargaining! If you leave it up to individual efforts the result is fruitless. How can you achieve enough numbers to control the costs if not through the government. Any other way is like trying to keep the worms in the can. Too many leaks to plug up.
Figures, the NCHC is another lobby among so many others. Their figures would of course be unreliable.
Quote me some that are? Or better yet give me some links.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc104 … ention.pdf
The above is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office.
The Analyst from the Budget office testified that the program will increase costs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02242.html
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/news/ec … /index.htm
In addition, the Democrats have said that they will be able to fund this program by cutting inefficiency. So why haven't they already before Obama became president if this situation was so urgent. And when have you known for government programs to actually be within their estimates?The analysis that healthcare costs would go up because more people would be using it is kind of a mute point isn't it. Their recomendation to promote a healthier lifestyle in lieu of insuring more people to lower costs in very naive at best. It does not help insure the working poor or people who have hereditary diseases. And really a congressmans study?
I will read through the other ones when I get a chance but your first one made me stop because of it's insidious projections.The CBO is well respected by both parties because of its impartiality. And you only find it insidious because you don't agree with it. But it's not surprising that you would ignore the fact that health care costs would go up, most democrats and brainwashed people do.
So you don't think preventive medicine is a good idea? Well it's in this new health care bill! There's is a whole bureaucracy designed to collect everyone's medical records, because they will all be required to be digital now, and this "panel" will use the data to select the most "appropriate" treatments for given diseases. And yes there will be encouragement for preventive care, exercise and diet etc as if that will prevent you from getting disease!
I did not say that but if you rely on improved preventative as the basis to lower these skyrocketing costs you are thinking on a far too impotent scale.
- Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago0
Here's something to think about...Lasik surgery which for the most part is not covered by insurance, since it first came out the costs to have this done have dropped considerably! Why do you think that is?
Don't you think its a bad idea to increase DEFICIT spending during the worst "financial crisis" since the "Great Depression"? It would appear that our government should be looking to address current budget issues with government funded programs, not just health care. Lets "Clean up the Mess" as the President put it.
What is funny is the bail out we gave the very rich recently was done with little trouble or pain but when it comes to our health we all shutter and hide from the plain truth. We have to make some sense of this or it will envelope us.
"WE" nothing, it was an out of controll congress. Maybe health care should have been addressed before putting nearly 800 billion dollars into business...those, according to you(I agree) didn't need it. With that track record why would you trust anything congress says is "needed" or will "help".
We the taxpayer as the members of the healthcare system would have the power to collectively bargain the costs and services. I thought that was clear.
PoppaB is right, who as members of the healthcare system bargain with? The government? What's the government going to do pauperize the medical staff? If so you think a lot of them are going to remain in medicine? Or will the government force them to do the job for so little?
Collectively bargin with whom??? The insurance companies? The service providers? The drug companies?
The insurance companies will be driven out of business by the Public Option. The service providers are already leaving the system in droves because the reimbursements are too low and under this plan the government wants to lower them! The drug companies? Well they already cut a deal with Obama so their prices are locked in for ten years!Now you got it! We the people will be in control and the providers will be forced to become more profitable in the administrations. And really Obama is at fault for the Republican drug plan that was forced down our throats with Bush. Puulease!
The people will be in control??? In control of what??? Did you eve read what I wrote??? The government will be in control of YOUR health! Doctors will leave the industry and do something else. I already know of doctors that are leaving their practice to go into malpractice law consulting! Many doctors have stopped taking Medicare patients and more will do so when the government makes 100 billion dollar cuts!
And I'm not talking about the Bush drug plan, but the back room deal Obama made with big pharma in order to get them to support this bill, 80 billion dollars in drug savings over ten years if Obama keeps foreign drugs out of the market and doesn't ask for further reductions. In addition the drug companies promised to air commercials backing his health care plan!!!Do you not vote? That is how government works. The government isn't them it is us.
Your sky is falling scenario does not help anything and your obvious hatred for Obama clouds your points. You seem to blame the guilt of the world on him. He is just a politician and serves at our whim. If you don't like him you can vote him out when the time comes.
You will still not have a healthplan and worse yet neither will your children.First I don't hate Obama. Second the government is not us, granted it is supposed to be but that isn't how things work anymore. Third, me and my children already have insurance and I'm quite happy with mine. And yes I can't wait for 2012 when we sweep all of the socialist democrats out of government and send the message we will not wear the shackles of socialism, we are free men!
Rhamson, it's clear we're not going to agree. And I don't want it to look like we're ganging up on you. I've said all I want to say on this. Bye for now.
- A Texanposted 14 years ago0
Our broke health care system, let me tell the story of my friend. Sunday night my friend called me because he has no transportation and asked if I would take him to the hospital. He had pains in his stomach,back and chest, we arrived at the emergency room at 1:30 AM and saw a doctor within minutes, he was diagnosed in about 2 minutes with a gall bladder attack. An ultrasound was done to confirm and he was advised that he had a sharp edged stone in his gall bladder and it was not opening or closing like it should, the Doctor advised surgery.
My friend has NO INSURANCE and advised the hospital of this and they responded with "We are here to care for your medical needs!" A surgeon was called from home to come into the Hospital to do the procedure, she was there within the hour. Surgery was performed at 5:30 AM and completed within the hour.
By the time my friend was out of recovery and into his room a donor had come forward and paid for the entire operation and hospital stay!
This was not a life threatening situation and was done as the only way to relieve the pain! He was released from the hospital Tuesday morning at 9AM.
Our health care system is second to none and those who want a single payer system are not too bright!I feel sorry for the situation your friend found himself in. It is all too common a story. The charity that was afforded him was truly remarkable. I only hope that many more can recieve the kind of care he recieved and just as importantly find someone who can pay for it.
I don't see how your story relates to 1. the quality of healthcare with 2. the relationship to how it was paid for. Is it your point that charity will be the way we should take care of the more than 60 million people that will be swelling the ranks of the uninsured by the year 2014?You don't think it speaks to the quality of care? How long would he have sat in a Canadian hospital before he even saw a doctor? I can tell you that the Doctor who diagnosed the problem told me that a friend of his works in the Canadian system and a patient would have been given a prescription for pain pills and sent home. If you really don't see the difference in a free market system and a government run system then you just are not looking for the difference!
As far as charity, I know of several people who have been helped by private donors, it is a lot more common than you know, keep shilling for government run systems though.You should really check your facts. Out of 191 nations compared Canada ranked 30th while the US ranked 37th. While the Canadian system averages longer wait times for services your friend would have recieved a priority care based on his urgent need. In Canada the medial cost per head is $1,893 while the US is $2,728. Because of the costs of healthcare in the US it is estimated that half of the bankruptsies in the US were directly related to medical bills. With Canadas "Subpar" healthcare system the Canadians live longer by two years.
The points you make are a lot of propoganda fed to you and you should investigate for yourself.
Oh, by the way could you turn me onto a few of those charitable individuals as I have a few medical bills I need to catch up on.I don't need to check rigged stats to know the US is the leader in Medical ingenuity and the rest of the world follows us, don't know what to tell you about donors its never happened for me, but then again I have insurance. Good luck with getting substandard medical care.
Well anybody can counter the facts with Liar!, Liar! but with it you prove my point. Your reaction comes from a gut instinct and you choose to believe what you wish. I would give you the studies but judging from your reaction I don't think you bother reading for yourself. I gotta wonder about the validity of that story about your friend if you don't know who the donor is or the others you cited. Oh by the way, the medical ingenuity of this country is different than healthcare industry I guess we just have to disagree with each other again my friend.
@rhamson, do you support the current bill as proposed?
Will it reduce costs or not? Why or why not?I don't know as it is not finished and too much is left up to conjecture.
My question is not neccesarily focused on the current bill but the lack of one. I just find it peculiar how the US is caught up in the politics of this and semantics of government when we have a true crisis about to blow up in our face. The figures are stagerring.
Is the socialism element threatening our democracy to the point we sacrifice our lives, income and way of life? I hope not but we have to do something.Well, you won't get an argument from me against the need for some changes within the system, but I honestly wish they would go back to the drawing board. The current bill is a failure whether they manage to pass it or not, and no matter what they call the public option it is a foot-in-the-door tactic.
I just can't fathom why other things that conservatives propose aren't being considered. The only explanation I have is that reducing costs now isn't really what they are after, and from what I have read the current proposal won't do it anyway. They will have to pass single payer to get it to work, but they can't do that in one fell swoop and since the blue-dog dems are not cooperating the other party leaders are trying to figure out how to spin it to get more public support. It's not going to help us either way.
You may have already heard this, but I found it an interesting illustration of how old the issue is and how very little has changed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iShCXx_xZDQIt's unfortunate, because universal coverage for catastrophic coverage only (not covering routine expenses and other things typically covered by today's insurance) is an honest proposal worth at least debating.
The problem is that the Republicans spent too much time and energy obfuscating and creating noise that it's clear they're not serious about any meaningful reform.I have heard it and do believe it has a strong message about something unchecked. What it also says is volumes with regard to a socialist agenda. If an idea that resembles socialism is entertained then there is automatically a conspiracy to follow. Before you know it we will speaking in Russian and living in third world conditions.
We currently have several socialized functions that are performed by the government within our democratic republic. One is the police another is the army and the fire departments and many of the services that are provided through our taxes. Voted on, approved and working.
Is the problem of calling it socialized medicine the stumbling block or is it the fear that it may work under this terrible name. The proof would be if it worked. And the foot in the door could precede the direction that makes sense. We are socialists in many ways and have made it work for us.
I agree the only way that a universal healthcare program can work is with a lot of people involved in it. You need the younger healthy base to be in it from the beginning so you have a way of paying for it. Public option seems to fit that bill and compulsory is soon to follow.
To deprive ourselves the rewards of a system because we want to prevent the boogey man from taking over is scare tactics and hey it works pretty good when it comes to wars.
The Canadians and Europe has signed onto this and moved on. We are caught up on a word.I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. While there are truly needy people out there, there are also people who make enough to afford care and would rather spend it on flat screens and Hummers. I am not willing to give up my freedom and tax dollars or my doctor's freedom just so .gov gets to tell everyone how to manage their health.
I believe that economic forces can move the needle, but there is too much bureaucratic red tape in the way now. The pols are trying to convince people that by adding more of it they are solving the problem. The only thing socialistic that I would support in this whole drive for universal coverage is a temporary expansion of Medicare to lesson the blow to those aged 50-65 who will find it difficult to find coverage. There would need to be income requirements, though. If they don't have coverage because they'd rather roll in a Caddy, well tough. We make choices and live with them. If they can strip the costs they think they can out of that program, then that is where they should focus instead of creating another.
I am unemployed and currently pay for insurance. I sure could use the extra money, but responsibility is necessary. Hardships will force the change we need. It is going to get worse, and as I said earlier, I don't believe this bill will stop that from happening.
I also want to clarify something from my earlier post: I do not support single payer as a solution.
We have to find the bottom, and sure it's going to hurt when we hit it. The gov't teat is not the answer. Eventually the gov't will fail as well if we continue.I appreciate your position and I hope you find a job soon as the insurance is going to kill your budget.
But for some odd reason you and many people think that public option will be free and therefore create another entitlement program such as welfare. That is far from the truth. It will cost plenty and your fear for the unknown is driving your hesitation. Sure government is big, clumsy and expensive but wait a few more years and healthcare will be totally unbearable with cost. Check it out for yourself.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtmlI've enjoyed the discussion and will have to make this my final comment on it for now since I believe we are now recycling our arguments.
I am not sure what you meant by thinking the public option will be free. I think the pols have done what they can to confuse the public about what exactly this is or what it means. I simply view it as a way for them to make people think that they are getting something special from the right hand while the left hand forces people to buy insurance and takes extra money through taxes on business as well as individuals. All the while, the real problem of the costs in the system aren't addressed and will continue to rise due to simple supply and demand factors.
When the weight of it is too crushing to bear, the door for single payer, full gov't control swings wide, but it shouldn't bother people too much by that time, since we gave up choice when we allowed ourselves to believe the initial farce.
It's a complicated problem with different possible solutions. My opinion is the one our pols are chasing is the one that will result in the most control. Have a good one.
- Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago0
We know that the USA lags behind many countries as far as health care costs per ca pita. Yes there are some issues but once again government control is not necessarily the best way to address them. We still lead the world in medical technology and that is a big cost driver. In addition we lead the world in cancer treatment and survival. These are old but still relevant:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/02/ … eport.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
Some of your other numbers are also incorrect...Even Obama said the number of uninsured is more like 30 million and that includes those that don't wish to buy insurance!You don't show the corelation between the two with the articles cited.
Are there areas in the US that have a higher survival rate you bet there is. Marylands Eastern Shore has one of the Highest rates in the nation and the survival rate is far below the national average.
There is nothing that goes to the cite the contrary between public healthcare and and medical research. Why would Canada want to jump into this market when they can reap the benefits of our research? Besides we trash their health system so much how could they sell us anything with the representation of their system we have tagged them with.
In essence your argument is that we should continue to allow these costs to escalate because we are a few points ahead of Canada. Can't we improve it? Are we stupid?
I was not referencing Obama with the uninsured figures. If you wish you can read this link that estimtes it will rise to 60 million.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
- Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago0
The police, fire department and the army are NOT socialist institutions!!
so⋅cial⋅ism  /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence
See web results for socialism
See images of socialism
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.Just place services in the etc. of that definition and it proves my point. Thanks for the clarity.
No. You can't just insert "services". Socialism is the distribution of assets amongst the community.
Sure you can. Is not a company that provdes services for profit have an asset that they can borrow on, buy or sell?
Socialism can never really prove they're doing things in the most effective and efficient way possible. A capitalist can do that. That is why socialism fails and costs run out of control or you are forced to ration services.
Okay even if services are included in the definition above the police, FD, and Army do not meet the rest of the terms of the definition "distribution in the community as a whole"!
Whether or not it meets the terms and conditions of the definition and I am not going to argue language and the interpretation of it, the fact remains that in order for communities by and large to provide for the common protection and welfare of the residents, there are taxes collected and systems put in place to make this happen.
Hey I am not a communist or a socialist and I exercise my right to free speech. Heck, my avatar is a picture of the constitution. I only suggest that we need to put our heads together and figure out a way to care for our fellow human beings and reduce the burden that the current healthcare system puts on our health and pocket book. I am a business owner and I have had to divest myself of all my employees to become profitable and competitive with my competition. Many others are doing the same thing. If enough of us do it who will have a job? I have said it before and I will say it again, we are in a race to the bottom and it is destroying us.
Pelosi is speaking right now. Ms clueless said she is putting it on line, I'm going to read it. She says it will only cost a Gadzillion, a drop in the bucket for them. $900 Billion, geez i think I have that in my wallet!
It's a lot of reading, 1900 pages!!!
Whatever they say it's going to cost, it's going to cost much, much more!
First of all, they are only projecting the cost out 10 years, but the benefits don't kick in to 2013 at the earliest and ramp up from there! So the real cost should start 5 years from now and then be projected out from there, then multiple by at least 4 because that's about how much more the MA plan cost from their estimate.
Oh, and by the way, the cost of insurance in MA is rising much faster than the rest of the country!
Yeah, I'm sure the feds won't make the same mistakes MA made, or they made with medicare, medicaid, social security, or the Iraq war!!!You bet it is and I guess the price tag reflects the immense problem that it is. Of course there are going to be plenty of mistakes and plenty of costs but it is just not going to go away.
What do you think it will cost exponentially if we wait a few more years?I think it's going to cost more, no matter what we do. I think it's going to be even WORSE if we allow the government to take it over, in other words it will cost even more than it would have otherwise, and the evidence to support that view can be seen now in every single government program!
In addition, because of the monetary policy of Bush and especially this president, the costs will be even worse!What can you do? This problem has been brewing for sometime. When Nixon asked his advisors what could be done to solve healthcare initiatives he was told that private HMO's such as Kaiser in California was providing medical benefits on a large employer and single payer basis. Nixon asked how THEY could make a profit and the answer was to deny benefits. He said that that'll work, next.
It has been shoved under the carpet and the insurance companies just do not have the collective powers to lower costs and make a profit. Unfortunately a large base is needed and a large amount of base seed money is required.But I don't see what's being done differently! Instead of private insurance, you'll have government insurance! Don't give me the collective bargaining crap argument!!! Government workers tend to be union workers and this administration is beholden to the unions! We've all seen how the unions brought down GM!
Whether you like the collective bargaining argument or not it is a reality that is better than the individual bargaining power. Maybe you should start a forum on how the unions ruined GM. I know I would participate.
Look, the insurance industry (HMO) do a great job keeping payments to doctors down. It's so good, it's the reason why not every doctor takes every insurance. It's the reason why many doctors no longer take medicare patients! You can only squeeze doctors so much! The problem is insurance is the middle man in the transaction! That isn't how it used to be. I was around when doctors made house calls, so I know what I'm talking about! I've got many doctors in my family, one heads a department at the prestigious Mayo Clinic! I read much of the original House bill HR 3200 and very little of that bill has anything to do with insurance reform or cost cutting. It's more about creating new bureaucracies, health advisory panels etc. I can tell you without equivocation if this gets passed you will pay more for your health care IF you can get it without delay!
That's your best argument? What can we do? Just so you know, insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines. The federal government has used the Interstate Commerce clause to block them from doing that, in the name of "protecting" consumers. What happens when you limit competition across state lines? Increased price. You really are aiming at the wrong target.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran-Ferguson_Act
That act was a good attempt, but much like the AMA, insurance companies soon bribed state legislatures to give them de facto monopolies in their home state. What effect did that have? It drove costs up because the number of players was artificially limited.
See that's how you create a sound reasonable argument, not ad hominem attacks, not emotional hysteria. Sound reasonable facts.
Well since our liberal comrades think it's ok to handle mexicos health care maybe canada will handle ours and then we can close the borders real fast and all those needing healthcare will be someone elses problem!
The current system is broken and we cannot afford it. Perhaps if the conservatives had a different solution other than no we would have a better plan on the table. Invariably people will follow someone with a crappy idea rather than someone with no idea. Fruit for thought in the next election cycle.
I'm a firm believer in national service. That way we get something in return rather than just give it away. This is all smoke and mirrors, I have health insurance, we have had some recent surgeries and associated procedures with out of pocket expenses around 6000 now if you can't afford health insurance at any price how would someone pay that on top of paying for their health insurance. Those cost will be lost and pushed onto taxpayers to make up the difference, and you know it.
I don't know that and neither do you but I do know if you have 150 million people paying into a system and you have 150 thousand people paying into a system the people in the bigger pool will make out better because of the size of the pool. The administration of this is something I agree is questionable.
Then who pays for the illegals, indegents and welfare recipients? Will they be forced to pay the same as everyone else?
I don't know but we are paying for them now. I would rather think we will be helping more hard working Americans than holding it up so we can make sure some undesireables can't take advantage of the system. I hope we can make this a dynamic process and address that as we go.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" ~Karl Marx
Indigents and people on welfare are already covered by Medicaid (part of Medicare). That won't change.
And illegals? You mean the people who positively, absolutely, no-way-no-how will not be able to participate in the health insurance system?
Besides, how do you collect from undocumented people?You close the borders and you give a bandaid and send them home. That way we are charitable but not continuing to burden the American tax payer.
Good luck with that. Illegal immigration will continue in every rich country on the planet. That's not an excuse to deny ourselves a better-functioning, lower-cost health care insurance system.
Ever ask yourself why we use insurance to pay for routine doctor's visits?
Unless more and more of those 150 million people are getting sicker or older.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe … EG20090701
Too many claims on your pool and you still go out of business. You still have to control costs somehow. How do you figure we do that?Not a valid argument. Your premise is that the current system can handle the lack of preventative healthcare better and therefore negates the newer public option as not having a large enough pool to handle the increased expenses. You assume that we would not address this because the overweight and smokers etc. would continue on because they now have a public option healthcare policy.
The individuals paying for all the late comers and grandfathered dependents is taxing our current system way too much and it is escallating costs. A younger compulsory pool of donors is needed to stretch the costs out over a longer period of time. I am not making this up. Whatever quality problems you may have with the Canadian system or the Britsh system it is a proven working blueprint.My argument is that it's madness to use insurance to pay for simple things like doctors visits. Our current way of paying for healthcare is analogous to using your car insurance to pay your mechanics bill.
It's one thing to insure against surgery or something like cancer, it's another thing entirely to cover doctor's visits with insurance. One argument you make that doesn't hold water is that medical costs will increase forever, exponentially. No they won't. Should costs continue to rise, at some point cost will be so high, that most people will be priced out of the market. If that were to ever happen, costs would have to be forced down, as doctors have to eat too. They can't do that if they're treating less and less patients.
You never have been able to answer the question as to why healthcare costs are going up. Until you can answer that, how can you know if your solution is one that will make things better or make things worse?There are so many reasons why healtcare costs are growing and not enough space to write about it. The natural progression of inflation and economic growth is something you can't control reliably. Tort laws and fraud help in continuing the escallation. An ever expanding older populace that is living longer and then there are the spoiled brat baby boomers segment that will also tax the system. Healthcare is big business and more hospitals are being built yearly that require more and more specialty practitioners and their specialized equiptment.
Covering doctors visits ensures that there is not an economic blockage when it comes to preventative care. If you insist I will get the link later that proves this to be a major hinderance to people seeing a doctor. Right now it is being handeled in the emergency room where the costs are astronomical compared to a doctors visit. I thought you knew this stuff.
That is why the participation of the youth in this program is paramount. A good example of the pooling of funds is the social security system which does work. It is also the best example of government mismanagement. The healthcare funds would need to be separate from the general fund and we must be vigilant with the administration of the funds.
The system is not perfect but we do have two good models to base it on with Canada and Great Britain.Never mind that we have a shortage of primary care providers. Why do you think that is? Building more hospitals? Really?
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profile … &rgn=1
Looks like the number is decreasing to me. Do you think the supply of hospitals might have an effect on the costs of healthcare? It's not a new problem either:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jbVaOw … mp;f=false
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 … tage_x.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2217146/
Oh dear, looks like government is part of the problem again.
Awesome idea, get the youth to pay for it. Meanwhile when it's their turn to get services there won't be enough people to support them. What do you call it when you use current money to pay off past investors. Oh yeah, Ponzi scheme.Yea why do you think the new hospital projects are in decline? Costs! I thought you might have picked that up. Might that slow down construction? I stated more hospitals are being built yearly so that they may show up as a cost factor and not an increase in numbers compared to earlier years. Twist it all as you do to subject it to your agenda. There is no appeasing you with your inuendo and closed mind.
Once again with the turnaround of a ponzi scheme on the youth. This program is centered on the youth because if nothing is done now there will be nothing left for them when they get there. As people die off and the population decreases there will be less strain on the system.
Say what you may and critisize as you will you have no ideas to support a non system that you offer. A civalization of anarchy is what will be the result. Are you from Texas?
We do have an answer but it is not the one you like. The system in Canada and England works and they look at us like we have a leg growing out of our heads when they see the dribble coming out of many such as you who refuse to accept a working plan.
Guess what if you are in England and you need some medical attention they don't care about all your argumentative crap about how the system doesn't work and that the costs are too high they just treat you. Same in Canada.
Sarcasm will only get you so far in the conversation before you begin to sound like an empty drum pounding out a monotonous tone. Perhaps this is a winning formula for you but I find it will make for you an impossible constructive result. Contrary to your fan club you don't know everything. You have no ideas and I can't help you grow any.
I am sorry but I have got to go for now but I will look up your retort to this as I am sure it will give me a chuckle first thing in the morning.The way the Canadians do it is through local regulation of fees for services. There are private supplemental packages available if individuals wish additional coverage. This would eliminate the whole society approach to Cadillac healthcare. The idea to make better the administration of records through digital media and thereby reducing costs is a step in the right direction. There are other methods which include Tort reform to stave off silly lawsuits. There are a number of other things I don't have time to go into but the Canadians spend about 10% of their GDP on Healthcare while The US spends around 16% of their GDP. The Canadian and British systems have worked, do work and will continue to do so. Are there problems with these systems? Sure but all of these processes have to have a dynamic approach to fix what does not work and to leave alone what does.
- sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago0
Let me think....No! Wait a minute........No! Hold on now......No! If we........No! The answer appears to be no.
You kind of sound like a congressman trying to figure this out.
The only thing missing is Wait a minute!....... Uh...... How does that benefit me?He actually sounds almost identical to Glenn Beck.
Good question! How does it? I already have health insurance.
We do indeed need new health care policies. Because the sick do not always have the time or ability to shop around for a better value for the money when they need health care, the health care industry tends to take full advantage, and the free market, usually a great way to ensure that people get products and services they want at a price they consider reasonable, does not apply to health care.
However, I do not agree with shoving through legislation most of our senators and representatives haven't even read. I do not agree with government policies covering procedures performed for socio-economic rather than medical reasons. I do not think policies that end up putting a bigger squeeze on the poor and middle class and force people to give more money to the insurance industry (which in my opinion is a huge part of the problem we already have)qualify as health care reform. And I am leery of any government health care policy passed by legislators and senators who wouldn't want to be covered by it.I agree that it is an unsavory deal but compromise is never a smooth experience. I have to hope that this can be a dynamic process and have room for improvement with enough sense to recognize when to exercise it. I want to stress the word hope in that sentence.
Oh brother...
there is no compromise taking place...
They have brought up things like tort reform and opening up state boundaries, but we don't see any compromise from the dems there do we? Only "no".To tell you the truth I don't like either of their tactics. The right with its death panels and alien insurance distortions crying foul and the left with the glossing over details about tort reform and borders but don't you think we have the best congress money can buy? What do you expect from the slime on the hill. It's a Sh**& deal but it is our Sh*&^ deal.
Related Discussions
- 152
Obamacare increase the avability of healthcare in what ways?
by Judy Specht 7 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new hospitals? New Jersey has closed how many community hospitals in the last few...
- 254
Health Care reform, Why are so many fighting it?
by Georgiakevin 14 years ago
I simply do not understand why people are fighting health care reform. I have heard the arguments against it and I keep saying how is that worse than being held hostage by the insurance companies? My insurance cost keeps going and in turn I get less and less coverage. They say the govt run...
- 93
What is your personal stand on health care?
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
This is an unscientific poll.I am curious to know the answers to four very simple questions:1. Do you have health insurance now?2. Who pays the premium (main monthly cost) of your health insurance?e.g., employer, government program, you, other3. If you didn't have insurance through a group...
- 19
New health care bill will increase costs:
by Holle Abee 14 years ago
I thought this article was interesting, especially since it appeared in the NYT. According to this guru, costs will INCREASE, not decrease. This is the same guru that democrats hailed as wonderful when he challenged Bush. Don't worry, though, costs will increase by only a few billion, and what's a...
- 68
Controversial CBO Report - Last step into Political Bizzaro World
by ga anderson 10 years ago
The gist of the new Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), report on the effects of Obamacare on the U.S. economy is that it will cause a reduction in works hours equivalent to about 2 million jobs by 2017.Here is just one link from a Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...
- 79
Will you be shopping for health insurance in your state's exchange?
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...