So, if you haven't heard, the U.S. House of representatives passed a bill that repeals the most recent Healthcare changes. The vote was 245-189, with only three democrats voting in favor of the repeal. After this bill was passed, house Republicans started working on a new bill to replace the current one.
However, even though this passed through the house, it has 0% chance of becoming a law with the senate and Presidential veto in the way. So most are calling it a "symbolic" movement by the house Republicans.
After a heated midterm election, the Republican-led U.S. House easily passed legislation Wednesday to repeal the nation's sweeping health care law.
The vote was 245-189. There were three Democrats who voted for repeal.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, talks to a reporter after the GOP-led House passed a bill to repeal the nation's health care law.
Overturning the law was a major campaign pledge for Republicans in the 2010 elections, and many of the House's nearly 100 new lawmakers ran for Congress saying they would repeal the law pushed by President Obama and Democrats.
House Speaker John Boehner said the law would add nearly $1.5 trillion to the deficit and stifle the growth of some small businesses, which are required under the law to provide health insurance to employees or face penalties. A key issue for Republicans is that the law requires all Americans to have health insurance.
"Let's stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs and put us in an even deeper hole," Boehner said. "Then let's work together to put in place reforms that lower costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting this government."
Democrats failed in their procedural attempt to send the repeal bill back to committee for a discussion. Meanwhile, House Republicans are already preparing for four House committees to take the next step in the repeal effort and figure out ways to change the law.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reminded Americans that "this vote does not change the law" and that her department will continue to implement its provisions.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has vowed to block the measure, and Obama has threatened to veto it.
Reid denounced the House's repeal vote as a political stunt.
"This is nothing more than partisan grandstanding at a time when we should be working together to create jobs and strengthen the middle class," he said in a statement today.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said the House was not engaged in a stunt. "This is not symbolic. This is why we were sent here," said Bachmann, a favorite of the small-government Tea Party movement.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., challenged Reid and Senate Democrats to show their votes and debate the measure if they are so confident of stopping the repeal effort.
"The American people deserve a full hearing," Cantor said this morning. "They deserve to see this legislation go to the Senate for a full vote."
President Obama signs the health care law last year.
Obama said he's willing to work with both Democrats and Republicans to improve the law, but "we can't go backward."
The only surprise in Wednesday's vote was how many Democrats would support the repeal effort.
In the end, Democrats Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Mike Ross of Arkansas were the only Democrats to join 242 Republicans to vote for the repeal legislation.
One issue key to the repeal debate is how much the law costs and the impact overturning it would have on the deficit. USA TODAY's Kelly Kennedy reports Republicans say the law will add $701 billion to the deficit while Democrats say repealing the measure will cost $230 billion.
Yesterday, Cantor sought to ease concerns from seniors who might think they would have to return $250 they received under the law to help pay for prescription drug costs. Democrats such as Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts have said throughout the repeal debate that seniors could be among those affected the most by overturning the law.
Shortly after the law was passed last year, about 2.8 million recipients of Medicare who have a gap in their prescription drug coverage (known as the doughnut hole) received $250 checks to help them defray the cost of medicines.
Asked yesterday whether Republicans would seek to have that money returned, Cantor said no.
"If a repeal bill passes ... the intention is not to require seniors to return the $250 checks they received," Cantor said at his weekly news briefing.
(Contributing: Associated Press)
Personal Opinion:
Seriously? They are holding up the entire legislative process in order to pass bills that have no chance of becoming a law? All the mean while, wasting tax payers money doing literally zero work.
I am trying to continue my stance as politically moderate but it is getting harder and harder. The term 'symbolic' was used to describe this event but I prefer to think of it as, how Steven Colbert put: "Republicans Pretend Time." This is absolutely appalling, and is making me question ever voting Repub again.
Edit: Due to the outstanding ignorance in this thread here you go:
Basically what is being repealed is changes to the U.S. Policy considering insurance agencies listed in the first 2:00. Not all of these changes passed but some did. Obviously "Socialist Obamacare" Did NOT pass through congress so that CANNOT be repealed
UPDATE: Obama addresses this directly in the State of the Union:
Go to 33:30 and watch 2 minutes. It was like watching a teacher settle a dispute between two children. John Boehner did not clap after Obama guaranteed his veto.
Well even if it is 100% political showboating, 90% of politics is showboating, so what's new? :D In other news, the healthcare bill destroys jobs and will cost trillions of dollars. If we don't repeal it ASAP, the terrorists win.
On January 25 2011 17:05 Gummy wrote: Well even if it is 100% political showboating, 90% of politics is showboating, so what's new? :D In other news, the healthcare bill destroys jobs and will cost trillions of dollars. If we don't repeal it ASAP, the terrorists win.
How sad how often I hear/read/see those kinds of comments said seriously and so commonly.
You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
On January 25 2011 17:27 Jswizzy wrote: Well Insurance companies pay allot of money to insure that health care remains privatized.
I hope the pun was intended
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
They don't even have it yet, if only they knew what it was like
Yeah compared to our politics everybody in the us is far far right lol
its great to see this happen, after seeing countless states ready to fight this in court or already finding the forced government approved health insurance unconstitutional this horrible piece of legislation will be gone. With the republicans and also democrats (believe it or not) finding new and actually helpful legal ways to fix our health care system can begin.
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Think about this for just a moment? They are getting absolutely nowhere, so they are doing absolutely nothing. Sure, they promised their voters something, but when has that ever fucking mattered in US politics anyway? I didn't vote Republican this midterm, but I would still prefer if they worked on important topics that they could actually make headway on...something beneficial to BOTH parties.
But that wouldn't make for good showboating/pundit fuel. So our Congress will stick to being useless shits.
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Think about this for just a moment? They are getting absolutely nowhere, so they are doing absolutely nothing. Sure, they promised their voters something, but when has that ever fucking mattered in US politics anyway? I didn't vote Republican this midterm, but I would still prefer if they worked on important topics that they could actually make headway on...something beneficial to BOTH parties.
But that wouldn't make for good showboating/pundit fuel. So our Congress will stick to being useless shits.
name one thing everyone in the entire political system can agree on to make headway? Doing things like this is what they have to do to get things moving in ANY direction also its all about political posturing and getting the point across.
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
They don't even have it yet, if only they knew what it was like
Yeah compared to our politics everybody in the us is far far right lol
i think he was referring to the Swedish Democrats, not the Democrats in the United States.. heh...
On January 25 2011 17:44 Tianx wrote: I'm so glad that the House voted to give themselves a salary increase for the third term in a row, they clearly deserve it.
/facepalms
Meanwhile Federal civilians get no increase for two years, veterans get no increase for three years, and active duty military get the lowest pay-raise since 1962.
On January 25 2011 17:27 Jswizzy wrote: Well Insurance companies pay allot of money to insure that health care remains privatized.
I hope the pun was intended
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
They don't even have it yet, if only they knew what it was like
Yeah compared to our politics everybody in the us is far far right lol
i think he was referring to the Swedish Democrats, not the Democrats in the United States.. heh...
Oh, I was actually reffering to the American ones. We only have the Social Democrats, and they are basically what the US would call ultra communists. You know they didn't only make university free, you also get a little money from studying. Ofcourse tax funded, but that's how it is. The democrats of the US are pretty extreme right wing in probably most European countries.
On January 25 2011 17:27 Jswizzy wrote: Well Insurance companies pay allot of money to insure that health care remains privatized.
I hope the pun was intended
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
They don't even have it yet, if only they knew what it was like
Yeah compared to our politics everybody in the us is far far right lol
i think he was referring to the Swedish Democrats, not the Democrats in the United States.. heh...
Oh, I was actually reffering to the American ones. We only have the Social Democrats, and they are basically what the US would call ultra communists. You know they didn't only make university free, you also get a little money from studying. Ofcourse tax funded, but that's how it is. The democrats of the US are pretty extreme right wing in probably most European countries.
Silly goose, in America we call EVERYONE ultra-communists. If you're not Hitler, you're not trying! =P
well, as someone who used to work for the healthcare industry, they were really pissed at the health care reform bill they worked really damn hard to get this repealed and they wont stop
You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
If they go through the motions of the repeal and it is shut down by the Senate/Executive Branch, do you consider it a kept promise? I am honestly curious.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
LOL. That's what happens when Americans vote for Republicans. They get this crap. I feel sorry for the people that didn't vote for this crap, but I feel even more sorry for Republicans who think they're actually getting REAL representation in Congress by voting for these guys.
im not being a dick or anything but the american healthcare system atm is an epic fail. Its something you would expect in my country.
One of the richest most powerful countries in the world with first world technology, a huge military funding, etc.
With a 3rd world standard health care system.
I saw a documentary about it just after christmas and quite frankly, i was disgusted by the exploitation of the poor and their shitty useless medical insurance.
Some of those people were literally thrown out on the street when they couldnt pay, with nothing on but the hospital clothes they were sleeping in.
as if any political party ever has kept promises, well except clinton, he promised monica a... nevermind
the dems ran on public healthcare, the reps to shut it down
as someone whos had 14 surgeries i think the current healthcare system is not working, my family was busted financially by my first surgery, the majority (10 surgeries) were done in UK (being a british cit i get free healthcare there) it took us nearly 10 years to recover financially from 1 surgery in the US without insurance
the healthcare system does need reform, but with the republicans... it wont be anything that would help the people without insurance
i had great healthcare from my last employer, my surgery cost more than $30,000, though i would not have died had i not had it, i would be unable to walk unless i had that procedure done if someone did not have insurance, as many americans do, imagine a $30k debt, or even a third of that. i was lucky i did not have to pay a cent of that, but not everyone has that luxury
i also spent 6 days in a hospital (emergency blood infection), bill came to around $10k it costs nearly 1k a day for staying in a hospital, minus all the scans, medication, iv, and so on
if you have no insurance, you are financially fucked if you require a procedure. just having insurance doesnt mean anything, for my first surgery i had insurance from my dads company, but they did not let you pick which physician you went to the physician they allowed us (thru kaiser) stated himself he was not comfortable doing the procedure and we find another surgeon
sometimes people have to decide between medication or their financial life, i have seen people with cancer who cannot afford their medication as it would financially ruin them.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
I really wish the general population would...if not use un biased sources...at least more than one.
The bill will reduce deficit over the long term.
Our current health care is absolute balls, and this coming from a guy that has a VERY VERY good insurance plan. I am not narrow minded enough to ignore the fact that very few people have the insurance I have.
It's an empty gesture. They can repeal it in the House all they want but if by SOME MIRACLE the repeal passes the Senate it will just get Vetoed and there is no way in hell the senate will get enough votes to overturn the veto.
The only reason the Republicans are going through with this "promise" and pretty much none of the others is because it follows their own agenda. Don't believe for a minute either party really cares about the people.
What happened to "Let's try it your way and see if it works. And if it doesn't we change it back?" More rational thinking, less populism, please! Also, the house of representatives is most probably one of the most expensive Kindergartens in the world.
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
Yeah the do. In fact all most every country in the world has a government run healthcare. I feel sorry for americans that this is such a big issue, especially i feel sorry for the millions of people that does not own a healthcare insurance. Its insane that in the richest country in the world, people just die on the streets and in their homes, because they dont have enough money. Nutz.
Someone care to explain why the people of the US dont want a social health care system? Most people would benefit from it. I would find it scary not to have a decent health insurance.
How greedy must one be not to grant all people a health insurance?
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
Yeah the do. In fact all most every country in the world has a government run healthcare. I feel sorry for americans that this is such a big issue, especially i feel sorry for the millions of people that does not own a healthcare insurance. Its insane that in the richest country in the world, people just die on the streets and in their homes, because they dont have enough money. Nutz.
Well the problem is that the US has a 80% debt of their GDP, which is pretty gosh darn bad. Other countries have implented this when the economic position was reasonably good, or right after ww2 when the public demanded it. Health care is also a bigger issue in the US. Currently health care takes up a huge percentage in the spending of the US federal funds, whereas in other countries with even better health care it does not as much. I think it all needs somewhat of a revamp.
Just my opinion. I don't live in the US, and I havn't studied the system in perfect detail, so ofcourse I might be totally wrong.
On January 25 2011 19:16 plainsane wrote: Someone care to explain why the people of the US dont want a social health care system? Most people would benefit from it. I would find it scary not to have a decent health insurance.
How greedy must one be not to grant all people a health insurance?
Anything that can be labeled a socialist policy is "demonized" in the States. It comes from fears that were awakened during the 1950s red scare.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Dude, politicians break so many promises they vote to fight for and don't give a shrug about it, but when they are doing something really useless (for them and for the people, that is) they suddenly get all symbolic? Yeah, tell that someone else.
And believe it or not , this bill will be good for you guys over there. Maybe not immediatly, and it may need some changes, but it's a step in the right direction.
On January 25 2011 19:16 plainsane wrote: Someone care to explain why the people of the US dont want a social health care system? Most people would benefit from it. I would find it scary not to have a decent health insurance.
How greedy must one be not to grant all people a health insurance?
propaganda. we have channels like fox full of far right 'reporters' like geraldo, beck, oreilly and hannity that sprew out biased information that naive people buy up, and the amount of idiots is astounding how many believed obama is muslim and still do think that? how many believe that iraq attacked on 9-11? how many cant even find iraq on a map? how many can still believe sarah palin is qualified for president?
i had one lady who used to frequent a transformers site, she said she was afraid of obama simply because of his race few months after obama won, i managed to get rid of that racist bitch (though i could have banned her at any time, i felt it was better i used witty banter to get rid of her), she hated immigrants to the US... when she came to the US from manchester england as well as a teenager. she was a die hard republican, who lived off welfare, by scamming unemployment.
under bush, she lost her job, her house, her credit rating due to a foreclosure, and her far right judge did not feel that a single mother could raise a child and so she was given joint custody of her kid with her child molesting ex husband though financially broke, she made sure to donate to the republican campaign and felt that sarah palin was more qualified and intelligent than obama
for those who havnt been to washington DC, there is tons of money just pooped on lobbying... but DC is full of slums and homeless people as well, i hate going to DC for that fact
greed is a very very powerful tool. we saw a war that cost many lives based on lies, only for oil corporations.
take a look at the healthcare industry, they make billions
heres some information about that
i buy antibiotics in bulk (for work), it costs us dollars for pounds of it buy the same thing from a pharmacist with fancy labels, $10/pill whats the difference? ours is labelled 'for research only' and is in power form
hiv tests cost $40, a kit that can do 80 tess for about $400, less if i was to buy the stuff separately it takes about a few hours to do the whole test from a kit, or 2 days if i was to assemble it myself
They are representatives. They have only not done their job if they have done something that does not represent the positions or benefit of those that they represent. I know a lot of people on both sides of this issue, so it seems that contesting it is certainly within the spirit of representation.
The people who say that this bill is good have not actually looked at the provisions. I could care less about healthcare either way, but taxing people for inaction is the largest and stupidest power grab the government has ever made.
Next they will penalize you for not driving a hybrid car. It's the entirely wrong way to work. They should offer incentives via subsidies or tax credits to people who switch, rather then taxing people who do not.
Remember, the government is really just a monopoly on force. In this case, they are basically saying "if you do not give away your money freely, we will come take it from you." Is this something you really want to stand for? It sets a bad precedent.
On January 25 2011 19:16 plainsane wrote: Someone care to explain why the people of the US dont want a social health care system? Most people would benefit from it. I would find it scary not to have a decent health insurance.
How greedy must one be not to grant all people a health insurance?
Anything that can be labeled a socialist policy is "demonized" in the States. It comes from fears that were awakened during the 1950s red scare.
which is such a stupid thing. i couldnt believe they outrage of idiocy (propganda calling obama socialist/communist/nazi lolwtf?) when i saw what US republic media made out of health care something thats standart in most "rich" countries since like 100 years.
i cant imagine what was going on in US media last 50 years if some idiots can just call something randomly out for beeing "socialist" and immediatly tons of people blindly hate it.
mind i dont know if for whatever reason there might really be problems with health care in the US. but how could i when all i saw on us media was crap propaganda on the absolutely lowest level possible.
guess the usa is the first country completly run by media and big companies. whats going on there recently doesnt have much to do with politics at all.
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
Yeah the do. In fact all most every country in the world has a government run healthcare. I feel sorry for americans that this is such a big issue, especially i feel sorry for the millions of people that does not own a healthcare insurance. Its insane that in the richest country in the world, people just die on the streets and in their homes, because they dont have enough money. Nutz.
I am unaware of people dying in their homes because they didn't have money. Hospitals take patients who can't pay quite regularly. Also, this didn't institute government run health care. It requires US citizens to purchase health insurance from private companies or from the government. The point is to lower premiums on insurance rates for those with major health problems.
I am for government health care, but I am against requiring people to purchase health insurance. It isn't the same thing.
just like voting, the healthcare would progress at first you had to be a white male an own land then just a white male then just male then just a citizen then just 18
it was one step towards universal healthcare, but if we let the big businesses dictate the direction of the country, we'll see more of a downward spiral such as the 8 year administration that ruined the economy by bending over for oil corporations
My understanding is that the moment if you have no health insurance you have to pay the full price of health care or more likely can't get health care at all, correct me if I am wrong. This to me is competely unbelivable coming from the U.K where health care is free and open to everyone. I can't believe anyone would ever vote against a bill that granted everyone the right to free health care. To me its bascially saying I'm O.K and the poor don't deserve health care i don't care.
Perhaps because health care is open to everyone and free the standard in the U.K is not always that greatest standard and you can often expect long waits and ques TT. However there is private health care that the rich can pay for if they feel they need it. So its not like they lose out.
Adding a third perspective I have had a lot of treetment on my leg here in South korea. The standard of treetment is amazing comparred to the U.K Public system. I seriously walked in of the street saw a GP and had an X ray like that with like 10 mins waiting. It cost me 10,000 won which is like £5 and my physio theraphy since then has been 2,000 won about a £1 a sesion its unbelivablly cheap. I don't know how they manage to have it so cheap (maybe exchange rate makes it seem cheaper to me). I'm might be covered by some kind of health insurance from my job I don't understand or know about, who knows.
Anyway my basic point is I can't believe anyone would vote against health care reform.
good news i have been hearing about 500 or so big businesses like McDonalds that have been allowed to avoid paying the healthcare for their employees this thing would hurt small businesses whilst big business reaps ever greater profits hey , isn't that what America is about nowdays?
Just a little clarification: if you turn up to the ER w/o insurance, the hospital has to treat you until you are at no immediate risk of dying. Then they send you the bill, which will probably be more than 10x your disposable income.
Then, of course, since they don't have to cure you, only stabilize you, you will be going back to the ER in a few weeks/months, getting another bill for all your assets, which you don't have anymore, because you went broke after the first visit.
edit:
On January 25 2011 20:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: good news i have been hearing about 500 or so big businesses like McDonalds that have been allowed to avoid paying the healthcare for their employees this thing would hurt small businesses whilst big business reaps ever greater profits hey , isn't that what America is about nowdays?
This is actually a good thing, at least in the long term. Ending employer supplied healthcare is one of the steps that need to be taken before healthcare can truly start to improve in the US.
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Think about this for just a moment? They are getting absolutely nowhere, so they are doing absolutely nothing. Sure, they promised their voters something, but when has that ever fucking mattered in US politics anyway? I didn't vote Republican this midterm, but I would still prefer if they worked on important topics that they could actually make headway on...something beneficial to BOTH parties.
But that wouldn't make for good showboating/pundit fuel. So our Congress will stick to being useless shits.
Pretty much this, but then when has that ever not been the case?
One step forward two steps back. I was really happy when the health care bill passed. Even saw it live via CSPAN. Not really sure why this is the way US politics work. I'm probably at fault to some extent seeing as I didn't vote in the midterm elections. But w/e I get sick a like once a year, if that, so just have to count on good luck until these clowns grow up and actually try to come to some kind of compromise between the two extremes.
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
Yeah the do. In fact all most every country in the world has a government run healthcare. I feel sorry for americans that this is such a big issue, especially i feel sorry for the millions of people that does not own a healthcare insurance. Its insane that in the richest country in the world, people just die on the streets and in their homes, because they dont have enough money. Nutz.
Well the problem is that the US has a 80% debt of their GDP, which is pretty gosh darn bad. Other countries have implented this when the economic position was reasonably good, or right after ww2 when the public demanded it. Health care is also a bigger issue in the US. Currently health care takes up a huge percentage in the spending of the US federal funds, whereas in other countries with even better health care it does not as much. I think it all needs somewhat of a revamp.
Just my opinion. I don't live in the US, and I havn't studied the system in perfect detail, so ofcourse I might be totally wrong.
you're just the kind of person that likes to comment on these things, at least you have the decency to admit you could be wrong. 99% of people in this thread are people that read a headline about it and just wanna come and say "oh my country can do it why can't yours" without knowing what the bill entails and even less about the current healthcare system.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
I would love to see politicians use their heads and not always fall into line. Why does everybody 'vote the party line' anyway? Is it because the votes are not anonymous? If this is true it should be fixed immediately. Democracy only works when the votes are truly anonymous. Knowing what your friends will vote and voting as a group makes a mockery of the idea of democracy itself, which is to use your own individual judgement for the good of everybody.
I laugh at this country and their politicians with their fucked up values. How is it that a country full of such great friendly people can be so heartless and ignorant when it comes to politics?
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are.
It clearly shows that a big chunk of americans are still in the selfish "every man for himself" mode in which they conquered the west 150 years ago. Might makes right and obviously a gun will solve every problem ... The welfare of "their fellow man" is never on their mind and it shows in treating the poor, the weak and those who live in another country and happen to be sitting on some oil.
I fear that one day in the future some radical will become president of the USA and be handed the suitcase with the command keys for all those nukes they still have.
On January 25 2011 21:02 Kalpman wrote: I laugh at this country and their politicians with their fucked up values. How is it that a country full of such great friendly people can be so heartless and ignorant when it comes to politics?
Because we're not that great, and we're superficially friendly. America is a festering boil, and the only thing that masks that is our high GDP and "glamerous" culture that we evangelize everywhere. Politicians are in a position to craft policy that shows where they truly stand on issues. Most of the time it's a big "fuck you" to one group or another.
On January 25 2011 21:04 Rabiator wrote: I fear that one day in the future some radical will become president of the USA and be handed the suitcase with the command keys for all those nukes they still have.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
To piggyback on this post they are also preparing new legislation in place of it.
Face it. America wasn't ready for Obamacare.
On January 25 2011 22:25 Shiragaku wrote: The Senate will not vote for the repeal and Obama will veto the bill. Nothing to worry about.
This too. It was a political show.
Unlike Democrats the Republicans want to make sure that their constituents felt like they were being listened to, regardless of what ends up happening in the Senate.
Republicans being inhuman, sneaky, devlilish, egoistic and only care about their own fortune?! Blasmephy! I thought Republicans were just pure capitalists... oh wait those two are the same.
Republicans are better at the whole "politics fiasco" than the democrats. I thought this was determined a long time ago.
Republicans vote together. Democrats actually vote according to their differing opinions. It's not that Republicans don't disagree, its just that they vote along party lines for political reasons.
While it was symbolic.. That symbolism gives the Republicans a bit more justification for going and introducing a new bill... which Might pass the Senate. At the very least it allows them to putforward a unified debate position.. ie the House can agree on this version of healthcare.
And attempting to fullfill a camaign promise is good, ie.. the bill didn't pass but I voted for it.
As for secret ballots for legislators.. would you really want no one to know what their legislator voted for? (not to mention the other legislators would probably be able to find out)
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Maybe if we have better schools we could change that...oh wait, the government runs that too. Nevermind.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
So what's your point? I grew up in Northern California, and all the fools there simply voted for their political party of choice (ie Democrats) in every election without really thinking about the policies of the politicians whom they were electing. Last I checked, California isn't doing so hot right now.
To all the europeans talking about "free" health care, aren't you still paying for it in your taxes whether you want to or not?
Also you guys need to remember that the US government does not work like other nation's governments and I'm not just talking politically. If the gov't had full control of healthcare they'd still run it waaay worse than any of the good european nations. I'm pro health care reform but I can understand the fears that some doubters have. Our government does not function anywhere near efficiently.
On January 26 2011 01:23 PacketOverflow wrote: To all the europeans talking about "free" health care, aren't you still paying for it in your taxes whether you want to or not?
Also you guys need to remember that the US government does not work like other nation's governments and I'm not just talking politically. If the gov't had full control of healthcare they'd still run it waaay worse than any of the good european nations. I'm pro health care reform but I can understand the fears that some doubters have. Our government does not function anywhere near efficiently.
yes, lol. that's always the slightly humourous bit. I think the dems should've phrased it differently: WE"RE NUMBER ONE - esque type of slogans while arguing that since the US is the strongest and best country in the world(something right wing propagandists use against the left with no response in kind), that if the US backs down on healthcare it'll show that it is a weak country.
Yay! Too bad it will never get passed in the senate
I'm still waiting for the provision about being forced to purchase health care to reach the supreme court as that will be more important than anything the congress is doing. Probably will be like 2-3 years before the supreme court takes up the case.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
On January 25 2011 17:30 Euronyme wrote: Hasn't like every other western world country already had this for like 70 years or so? Ah well. Hope it turns out alright for you, but imho keeping it is the best thing you can do. Democrats are considered right wing over here though, so I guess my view of things are somewhat skewed.
Yeah the do. In fact all most every country in the world has a government run healthcare. I feel sorry for americans that this is such a big issue, especially i feel sorry for the millions of people that does not own a healthcare insurance. Its insane that in the richest country in the world, people just die on the streets and in their homes, because they dont have enough money. Nutz.
Well the problem is that the US has a 80% debt of their GDP, which is pretty gosh darn bad. Other countries have implented this when the economic position was reasonably good, or right after ww2 when the public demanded it. Health care is also a bigger issue in the US. Currently health care takes up a huge percentage in the spending of the US federal funds, whereas in other countries with even better health care it does not as much. I think it all needs somewhat of a revamp.
Just my opinion. I don't live in the US, and I havn't studied the system in perfect detail, so ofcourse I might be totally wrong.
you're just the kind of person that likes to comment on these things, at least you have the decency to admit you could be wrong. 99% of people in this thread are people that read a headline about it and just wanna come and say "oh my country can do it why can't yours" without knowing what the bill entails and even less about the current healthcare system.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
Its funny how the things you wrote in the first paragraph can be applied to the second paragraph.
On January 25 2011 20:05 Greg_J wrote: My understanding is that the moment if you have no health insurance you have to pay the full price of health care or more likely can't get health care at all, correct me if I am wrong. This to me is competely unbelivable coming from the U.K where health care is free and open to everyone. I can't believe anyone would ever vote against a bill that granted everyone the right to free health care. To me its bascially saying I'm O.K and the poor don't deserve health care i don't care.
Perhaps because health care is open to everyone and free the standard in the U.K is not always that greatest standard and you can often expect long waits and ques TT. However there is private health care that the rich can pay for if they feel they need it. So its not like they lose out.
Adding a third perspective I have had a lot of treetment on my leg here in South korea. The standard of treetment is amazing comparred to the U.K Public system. I seriously walked in of the street saw a GP and had an X ray like that with like 10 mins waiting. It cost me 10,000 won which is like £5 and my physio theraphy since then has been 2,000 won about a £1 a sesion its unbelivablly cheap. I don't know how they manage to have it so cheap (maybe exchange rate makes it seem cheaper to me). I'm might be covered by some kind of health insurance from my job I don't understand or know about, who knows.
Anyway my basic point is I can't believe anyone would vote against health care reform.
This is because the United States doesn't operate like the rest of the world. Health care for the poor is already taken care of at the state/county level. Every county I have lived in has public hospitals for the poor and offer things like medicare, etc. The reason health care is expensive in the US is a combination of things which individually seem ok.
For example, one of my closest friends owns a medical clinic. He say he spends around $50,000 a year paying for someone to make sure they are always complying with the law. He spends a ton of insurance for his business against malpractice and also has to hire extra employees in order to do government paper work. Basically like 50-75% of the cost of health care is directly related to government regulation and lack of competition.
In reality, health insurance is expensive enough that most people in the age group (14-30) don't buy it since they don't really need to. I have not had health insurance for 6 years. The last time I had it I was paying $250 a month. I have saved $18,000 by not having insurance. I've gone to the doctor a few times and payed around $900 for various treatments in the past 6 years. Obviously I need to buy insurance soon, but so far it's worked out ok. (My wife also hasn't had insurance and has saved about the same amount).
There is a line. As a libertarian I believe that competitive, unregulated (or lightly regulated) health care with some local social programs is the absolute best possible economic solution, but if we are going to do socialized health care, do it all the way. None of this half-assed "You must buy healthcare" crap. This is basically corporate health care since the government is essentially saying "ok health insurance companies, you can rape the US public with your insurance prices".
Health care wasn't always this bad in the US (the care is great actually, the price is high), but there has been a ton of recent regulations and court decisions (in relation to mal-practice) that have caused the prices to be abnormally high.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down.
Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms.
There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian.
Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
So what's your point? I grew up in Northern California, and all the fools there simply voted for their political party of choice (ie Democrats) in every election without really thinking about the policies of the politicians whom they were electing. Last I checked, California isn't doing so hot right now.
I didn't really mean that as a shot at the Repubs so much as a statement about all voters. Like I said, I'm from a place that's very set in its Republican ways so I just used what I see as the example.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down.
Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms.
There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time.
It's not completely inelastic. Emergency care yes is inelastic, but other treatments are not. And emergency care only insurance is actually really cheap. Unlike other commodities (water, electricity), health care can be run completely independent of the geographical location meaning that there will always be competition to drive the somewhat inelastic prices down. However, certain laws regarding certain medical procedures and techniques (specifically those related to diagnosis) make the diagnosis process more expensive than treatment most of the time. Also another contributing factor is that health insurance is also an oligopoly since federal law prevents companies selling insurance across state lines which is why companies like kaiser have 50 subcomanpies, one for each state (kaiser nevada, kaiser northern california, kaiser southern california, etc.). This discourages competition as well.
Obviously the health care law isn't going to be repealed until at least 2013, but what I think the republicans will do is add provisions like removing mal-practice stuff, removing certain regulations, and getting rid of certain provisions which give the federal government too much authority. The biggest thing that will likely happen is the repeal of the mandatory health insurance purchase law.
So here's my predictions. 2011: Certain previsions related to minimum coverage are removed. 2012: Supreme court finds provision related to mandatory insurance unconsitutional (since it is). Congress tries to pass emergency legislation in order to circumvent, but are blocked by republicans. 2013: Majority of health insurance bill is repealed (bipartisan), only small provisions remain (such as age requirements, etc). Also bipartisan, government makes all health care costs tax-deductible and allows insurance companies to sell across state lines. (this is a hope more than a prediction)
Good thing the republicans are looking out for all those poor people who need heart surgery and cancer treatment by forcing them into debt to avoid extra deficit in the small term, which will pay itself off in the long term.
Snide remarks aside, that's pretty silly. The whole US gov't is a pretty mixed up situation at the moment anyway. Thank god I don't live there.
Well, even if it's a bill that's not going go through, so what? At least they're showing they've got the backbone to stand up to crappy, healthcare "reform."
If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you?
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian.
Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats.
I see.
How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today?
Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost.
You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this.
Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly.
On January 26 2011 02:18 Belegorm wrote: Well, even if it's a bill that's not going go through, so what? At least they're showing they've got the backbone to stand up to crappy, healthcare "reform."
If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you?
On January 25 2011 19:16 plainsane wrote: Someone care to explain why the people of the US dont want a social health care system? Most people would benefit from it. I would find it scary not to have a decent health insurance.
How greedy must one be not to grant all people a health insurance?
A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.
You can't really insist that most people would benefit from it and then call them greedy for not wanting it
On January 26 2011 02:18 Belegorm wrote: Well, even if it's a bill that's not going go through, so what? At least they're showing they've got the backbone to stand up to crappy, healthcare "reform."
If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you?
And that's the whole point. Yes, it's a symbolic gesture to repeal healthcare right now, but it's a gesture that will keep the healthcare bill as a focal point in political debate and make it a major issue in next year's elections.
The healthcare bill is a bad bill that is becoming increasingly unpopular. It will be changed eventually.
It's cool to see so many countries bash the U.S. =D
For the record, the Republican party is known for operating based on fears, fear of immigrants, and disaster, and terrorism, all the like. Also know that the following is pure opinion.
The healthcare bill is like building a photon cannon. It gives detection, and protects probes, but at the end of the day it doesn't help you attack. The rich don't want to pay to subsidize the costs of the lower class's health insurance. The lower class is manipulated into thinking they will be forced to pay large sums for health insurance they might not need.
In fact, health insurance is a good thing for doctors as well. Treating a patient without insurance, or with really crappy health insurance, is really awkward. Someone needs to pick up the tab at the end of the day. Europe should understand that getting reelected is the only important thing here, and that Germany won't bail us out if we overextend ourselves. If you haven't checked out our debt, do it sometimes.
On January 25 2011 19:16 plainsane wrote: Someone care to explain why the people of the US dont want a social health care system? Most people would benefit from it. I would find it scary not to have a decent health insurance.
How greedy must one be not to grant all people a health insurance?
A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.
You can't really insist that most people would benefit from it and then call them greedy for not wanting it
Whether or not they think they would benefit from it is not the point. The point is that the entire country benefits from ensuring that its citizens are all provided with health care whether or not they want it.
Just as education is compulsory in the United States, so it health coverage.
If you cannot afford a state certified private school, you must attend private school, if you refuse private school, you must undergo a state-approved home school program.
On January 26 2011 02:18 Belegorm wrote: Well, even if it's a bill that's not going go through, so what? At least they're showing they've got the backbone to stand up to crappy, healthcare "reform."
If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you?
Free health care is a basic human right in plenty of countries. Denying 20% of your population a basic human right because it'll cost the rest too much money is a pretty dumb way of doing things. Then again, this kind of logic is how the american economy got so strong in the first place, so hey, I guess I'm just stupid.
On January 26 2011 02:18 Belegorm wrote: Well, even if it's a bill that's not going go through, so what? At least they're showing they've got the backbone to stand up to crappy, healthcare "reform."
If there was some kind of new law that banned freedom of the press, and there was big way to take a stand against it, wouldn't you?
And that's the whole point. Yes, it's a symbolic gesture to repeal healthcare right now, but it's a gesture that will keep the healthcare bill as a focal point in political debate and make it a major issue in next year's elections.
The healthcare bill is a bad bill that is becoming increasingly unpopular. It will be changed eventually.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian.
Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats.
I see.
How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today?
Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost.
You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this.
Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly.
This is an interesting post. You correctly point out most of the economic dynamics in healthcare, yet you conclude that the free market cannot responsibly provide health care.
Here's the deal with purely socialized care: you can't have everything. Because socialized care fixes the amount of money available for care for everyone, someone has to decide what benefits will provided to whom. This is called "rationing" and is synonamous to those infamous "death panels." Need a kidney transplant when you're 70 years old? Well, depending upon what the rationers decide, you may be SOL.
It's not just patients that get a raw deal under socialized care. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other providers get hosed as well. Less money in the system means less money for treatment and less money for R&D of new treatments and drugs. It's not a coincidence that 60% of doctors are thinking about changing careers or retiring because of Obamacare.
The best solution (and what will probably happen eventually) is that there will be some form of limited public healthcare that takes care of basic needs and services. Beyond that, individuals will be free to purchase better health care from private insurers for additional benefits.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian.
Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats.
I see.
How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today?
Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost.
You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this.
Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly.
This is an interesting post. You correctly point out most of the economic dynamics in healthcare, yet you conclude that the free market cannot responsibly provide health care.
Here's the deal with purely socialized care: you can't have everything. Because socialized care fixes the amount of money available for care for everyone, someone has to decide what benefits will provided to whom. This is called "rationing" and is synonamous to those infamous "death panels." Need a kidney transplant when you're 70 years old? Well, depending upon what the rationers decide, you may be SOL.
It's not just patients that get a raw deal under socialized care. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other providers get hosed as well. Less money in the system means less money for treatment and less money for R&D of new treatments and drugs. It's not a coincidence that 60% of doctors are thinking about changing careers or retiring because of Obamacare.
The best solution (and what will probably happen eventually) is that there will be some form of limited public healthcare that takes care of basic needs and services. Beyond that, individuals will be free to purchase better health care from private insurers for additional benefits.
I'm not calling for the dissolution of private insurance companies. Those fortunate enough to afford super-premium coverage are much obliged to seek it.
The problem with your argument is that third-party insurance companies are even more prone to the rationing sentiment you describe.
Ever heard of preexisting condition? Unlike a government program, insurance companies have no social incentive to provide coverage for people who are deemed 'unprofitable'
There does need to be a debate over 'end-of-life' treatment plans.
If you are 70 years old and you need a kidney transplant, or if you are 80 years old in the very late stages of cancer, perhaps the costs of keeping you alive really are prohibitively expensive for the government to cover you. But that's not the point of the argument. This bill does not force citizens under the federal plan. It merely extends coverage to those with no health insurance at all.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian.
Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats.
I see.
How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today?
Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost.
You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this.
Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly.
You are bringing up examples of isolated incidents. Here are some counter examples.
Demand for medical care is not inelastic. Here's an article on it http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/22/is-health-care-demand-elastic/ The best example is that a ton of people don't have health insurance. The fact that people are willing to not buy health insurance is definitely a sign of it's elasticity.
Anyway, health care used to be unregulated. It was cheap, health care is now regulated, it is expensive. In many third world countries, health care can be purchased for a fraction of the cost as those countries do not have major corporate insurance companies nor regulated health care, just doctors treating patients. Obviously in a first world country prices will be higher (due to wages and demand for higher quality treatment), but in every example i've ever seen, deregulation always leads to lower prices. The only purpose of regulation is to stop some sort of behaviour or discourage it. There has never been any regulation which has helped the economy.
For pharmaceutical companies, we should just allow foreign companies to sell medicine in the US, it would become a lot cheaper.
If the government truly wants to lower the price of insurance at the expense of taxpayers, they can simply offer a tax credit to insurance companies. Something like 50% of revenues earned from insurance are not taxed. That, along with legislation to promote competition, will lower the rate of health insurance to the point where it's affordable for everyone with a job. Counties and states can take care of the poor like they already do.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
I would like to point out a few things abut the german healthcare system, just because your view of how it works is fundamentally wrong.
1. The government does NOT run health insurance. It merely legislated that health insurance is mandatory. This means that a) everyone has to get an insurance (excluding kids and spouses who do not have an income who will be covered by a working person) and b) that an insurance company is NOT allowed to deny you for whatever reasons.
2. There are two types of insuracne companies in germany, "legal" and "private". The legal ones are not "public" in the sense that they are state-run. There are currently 166 of the "legal" insurance companies which allows for a lot of competition. "Legal" insurance costs around 15 percent of one's gros income, that is, the more you earn, the more you pay. Higher incomes subsidise weaker incomes (yeah, kinda socialist). If your yearly income exceeds 50.000 Euros you can selkect a private insurance (for lower incomes it is usually not possible and also not cost-effective). German private insurance has fixed rates, that is, no subsidizing of weaker incomes.
3. "Legal" insurance companies are forced by law to civer a specific set of health care (e.g. full coverage of all costs associated with broken bones, amalgam fillings for teeth). Everything beyond that can either be covered by adding specific private insurances (e.g.add-on insurance for teeth) or paying the added cost privately.
All in all, the system is not state-run! The state merely legistaled in a way that ensures that everyone regardless of income can obtain a specified minium health care coverage. People are free to chose the insurer that offers the best deal or the best service and whoever wants better healthcare than the baseline can buy additional insurance. Thereis no "middle man" but,. on the plus side, also no stakeholders who want profit at the cost of the insured. Pretty sensible system, if you ask me.
You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this.
Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian.
Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats.
I see.
How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today?
Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost.
You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this.
Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly.
This is an interesting post. You correctly point out most of the economic dynamics in healthcare, yet you conclude that the free market cannot responsibly provide health care.
Here's the deal with purely socialized care: you can't have everything. Because socialized care fixes the amount of money available for care for everyone, someone has to decide what benefits will provided to whom. This is called "rationing" and is synonamous to those infamous "death panels." Need a kidney transplant when you're 70 years old? Well, depending upon what the rationers decide, you may be SOL.
It's not just patients that get a raw deal under socialized care. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other providers get hosed as well. Less money in the system means less money for treatment and less money for R&D of new treatments and drugs. It's not a coincidence that 60% of doctors are thinking about changing careers or retiring because of Obamacare.
The best solution (and what will probably happen eventually) is that there will be some form of limited public healthcare that takes care of basic needs and services. Beyond that, individuals will be free to purchase better health care from private insurers for additional benefits.
Rationing already happens in our system. People with pre-existing conditions can't get any treatment except for emergency, life-saving ones. People who cannot afford medical insurance simply don't get any treatments again except for emergency ones.
Also, the issue of organ donation is a prime example of how rationing works. No 70 year old in the US will get an organ transplant off the donor list. If a family member decides to donate an organ, then that 70 year old can get a transplant. But off the list? No way. There are literally 40 different metrics on the organ donation list that prioritizes people based on age, health, ability to pay, time waiting, etc etc. Organ donation is heavily rationed as is most healthcare in the US. There's a huge push to get people who have substandard insurance out the door as soon as possible because of how unprofitable they are. Hospitals around the country are closing their emergency services because of how unprofitable it is. You simply aren't paying attention to what's happening in the US while complaining about rationing in Europe.
On every metric, the US health system is fail. We are right in the thick of several Eastern bloc nations. Every developed country (and some developing countries) are ahead of us on every meaningful measure of healthcare. We pay, literally, 5 times more than the most expensive socialized healthcare in taxes alone. Counting disposable income (eg copays, prescriptions, deductibles) we pay close to 7 times what other countries pay. Remember, in Germany or France, once you pay your taxes, your liability towards healthcare ends.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian.
Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats.
I see.
How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today?
Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost.
You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this.
Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly.
This is an interesting post. You correctly point out most of the economic dynamics in healthcare, yet you conclude that the free market cannot responsibly provide health care.
Here's the deal with purely socialized care: you can't have everything. Because socialized care fixes the amount of money available for care for everyone, someone has to decide what benefits will provided to whom. This is called "rationing" and is synonamous to those infamous "death panels." Need a kidney transplant when you're 70 years old? Well, depending upon what the rationers decide, you may be SOL.
It's not just patients that get a raw deal under socialized care. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other providers get hosed as well. Less money in the system means less money for treatment and less money for R&D of new treatments and drugs. It's not a coincidence that 60% of doctors are thinking about changing careers or retiring because of Obamacare.
The best solution (and what will probably happen eventually) is that there will be some form of limited public healthcare that takes care of basic needs and services. Beyond that, individuals will be free to purchase better health care from private insurers for additional benefits.
I'm not calling for the dissolution of private insurance companies. Those fortunate enough to afford super-premium coverage are much obliged to seek it.
The problem with your argument is that third-party insurance companies are even more prone to the rationing sentiment you describe.
Ever heard of preexisting condition? Unlike a government program, insurance companies have no social incentive to provide coverage for people who are deemed 'unprofitable'
There does need to be a debate over 'end-of-life' treatment plans.
If you are 70 years old and you need a kidney transplant, or if you are 80 years old in the very late stages of cancer, perhaps the costs of keeping you alive really are prohibitively expensive for the government to cover you. But that's not the point of the argument. This bill does not force citizens under the federal plan. It merely extends coverage to those with no health insurance at all.
One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is that it makes insurance companies unprofitable by forcing them to insure people with preexisting conditions. Health insurance is meant to be a hedge against the risk of needing treatment. Obamacare is basically forcing health insurance carriers to take on new liabilities -- not the risk of liabilities. This is a big problem. If we're going to provide some degree of treatment to people who are uninsurable privately, then create a public option for them exclusively and just call it what it is: another form of welfare. At least that way, everyone else won't get screwed beyond having another government liability to fund (as opposed to having their health insurance wrecked).
Here's another sign that Obamacare is a bad bill: have you noticed how many companies and unions have been seeking waivers from Obamacare's provisions? What do you think the issue is there?
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down.
Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms.
There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time.
Yeah because a government with a trillion dollar deficit is obviously going to be responsible and reform. What people don't understand is that when you see a big problem, the government doesn't give a flying fuck, your problem is a benefit for them. Health care "reform" will be nothing more than a power grab to further ensure they will remain in control, that is what they do. They use the power to further insure and expand their power. They look after their own interests.
People are down on the free market (which does not exist) because they don't like the thought of people and corporations greedily pursuing their own interests...yet they have this nonsensical idea that the government will not pursue things with the same greed? Why? They are all human, you can't change this nature by calling it something else and trusting some bozos in a suit. All it does is give them more money and more power which leads to more ability to be greedy and consume.
On January 25 2011 23:53 eight.BiT wrote: I live in the south and let me tell you the average US citizen is scary. Where I live, it's more of a thing to fit in to say you're a republican and all that. I've sat around and talked with these people about what going on in current politics and shockingly they really have no idea whats going on. I can't tell you how often I hear people constantly repeating what they heard from Rush Limbaugh.
I think the scariest part is their children. I went to school with them and they really DON'T care what's happening in politics as long as their party wins. They have no idea what their voting for besides the fact their parents raised them all their life to be another Republican zombie.
Before someone starts flaming me, I'm not a Democrat.. don't bother.
Eh, my whole family is full of immigrants and they are all democrats without knowing why. It goes both ways. I'm libertarian.
Are they registered democrats? Are you a registered libertarian?
I don't remember what i'm registered. I last registered republican so I could vote for ron paul in the primaries, but then I think I re-registered libertarian.
Yes, the ones that are US citizens (like 50%) are all registered democrats.
I see.
How strongly are you convinced of the benefits of deregulation? Like I said before, demand for medical care is inelastic. While it is true that you have saved a good deal of money forgoing health insurance, what if you were stricken with early-stage lymphoma today?
Pharmaceutical companies all sink a ridiculous amount of money into R&D and so the industry has a prohibitively high barrier of entry. Surgery is the definitive high-skilled job requiring a decade of training and cost.
You are dying; you will pay anything to be treated and the doctors and pharmaceutical companies all know this.
Sovereign nations know this as well. This why citizens of any country have always demanded healthcare along with education and infrastructure as services the free-market simply cannot provide responsibly.
You are bringing up examples of isolated incidents. Here are some counter examples.
Demand for medical care is not inelastic. Here's an article on it http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/22/is-health-care-demand-elastic/ The best example is that a ton of people don't have health insurance. The fact that people are willing to not buy health insurance is definitely a sign of it's elasticity.
Anyway, health care used to be unregulated. It was cheap, health care is now regulated, it is expensive. In many third world countries, health care can be purchased for a fraction of the cost as those countries do not have major corporate insurance companies nor regulated health care, just doctors treating patients. Obviously in a first world country prices will be higher (due to wages and demand for higher quality treatment), but in every example i've ever seen, deregulation always leads to lower prices. The only purpose of regulation is to stop some sort of behaviour or discourage it. There has never been any regulation which has helped the economy.
For pharmaceutical companies, we should just allow foreign companies to sell medicine in the US, it would become a lot cheaper.
If the government truly wants to lower the price of insurance at the expense of taxpayers, they can simply offer a tax credit to insurance companies. Something like 50% of revenues earned from insurance are not taxed. That, along with legislation to promote competition, will lower the rate of health insurance to the point where it's affordable for everyone with a job. Counties and states can take care of the poor like they already do.
Just finished reading the article.
Let me refine my point by saying that health care is elastic until the point at which people become sick. At that point it becomes practically inelastic - and the implications still stand.
Health care used to be cheaper in the past, but health care was also worse in the past. Much of the increase in expense has been on end-of-life treatment advances whose long-term social benefits are admittedly dubious. The prevalence of malpractice lawsuits and the modern litigation-happy sentiment has had a significant effect as well.
It is a mistake predict the fall of health care costs with complete deregulation without considering those prevalent factors.
More to the point, even if it is cheaper, it is may still not be worth the social cost.
Riddle me this: Why would an insurance company provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions?
How would the free market take care of those who would undoubtedly be rejected by insurance companies simply practicing smart business policy?
What I love best is when people say that the government should "keep its hands off my health care!" what they are really saying is that they would much rather have their healthcare in the hands of a large, for profit, evil, disingenuous (how J stewart describes fox news but it works here too), organization hellbent on increasing profits.
The entire system is contradictory: the better healthcare people get with insurance companies the WORSE it is for that company's shareholders. The more claims that get denied the BETTER it is for the company's shareholders. It makes no sense at all.
The healthcare bill to me seemed like a proud noble warrior marching off into battle, but as he's walking to this battle, he walks through a swamp where alligators chew off his foot, then some bandits bludgeon him with rocks and clubs, he loses all his money and when he shows up for battle hes a quivering shell of a man with no armor or money or weapons or feet. Just replace this man with the healthcare bill and the alligators and bandits with republicans.
The system as it is now is absolutely ridiculous. I work at a health insurance company (possibly the largest in America in fact) and the amount of money wasted on TOTAL BULLSHIT is mind boggling.
The situation has to change. Republicans want nothing to happen. That way, more people will go into debt-hell-pits of despair with one accidental emergency, and insurers can keep rising rates. It's awesome because health insurers do not give a flying monkeys ass about pricing people out of their market, as long as the people they DO insure give them a profit, 99 percent of America could be without health insurance and they would be absolutely fine with it as long as the other 1 percent pays their premiums.
free market cannot responsibly provide health care.
If our current situation illustrates this at all, no... no free market can provide responsible healthcare. GREED is more powerful than the CEOs conscience.
One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is that it makes insurance companies unprofitable by forcing them to insure people with preexisting conditions
LOL covering people with pre-existing conditions (aka your fucking diabetic grandmother) is a PROBLEM?
Jesus christ. You can either have half the country getting fucked by pre-existing conditions or you can mandate everyone has to have health insurance at all times so they cannot just apply when something is wrong. There is no middle ground.
On January 26 2011 03:20 DamnCats wrote: What I love best is when people say that the government should "keep its hands off my health care!" what they are really saying is that they would much rather have their healthcare in the hands of a large, for profit, evil, disingenuous (how J stewart describes fox news but it works here too), organization hellbent on increasing profits.
The entire system is contradictory: the better healthcare people get with insurance companies the WORSE it is for that company's shareholders. The more claims that get denied the BETTER it is for the company's shareholders. It makes no sense at all.
The healthcare bill to me seemed like a proud noble warrior marching off into battle, but as he's walking to this battle, he walks through a swamp where alligators chew off his foot, then some bandits bludgeon him with rocks and clubs, he loses all his money and when he shows up for battle hes a quivering shell of a man with no armor or money or weapons or feet. Just replace this man with the healthcare bill and the alligators and bandits with republicans.
The system as it is now is absolutely ridiculous. I work at a health insurance company (possibly the largest in America in fact) and the amount of money wasted on TOTAL BULLSHIT is mind boggling.
The situation has to change. Republicans want nothing to happen. That way, more people will go into debt-hell-pits of despair with one accidental emergency, and insurers can keep rising rates. It's awesome because health insurers do not give a flying monkeys ass about pricing people out of their market, as long as the people they DO insure give them a profit, 99 percent of America could be without health insurance and they would be absolutely fine with it as long as the other 1 percent pays their premiums.
free market cannot responsibly provide health care.
If our current situation illustrates this at all, no... no free market can provide responsible healthcare. GREED is more powerful than the CEOs conscience.
Try running a medical office. The government is all over healthcare and has been for a long time. Red tape everywhere. There is not one single action that happens in a medical office that does not have to follow government guidelines. Oh and on top of having to feed that fat insurance middle man, doctors have to hire extra staff just to deal with the insurance companies. You'd have to be a moron to thing this will lower costs. Meanwhile the american people go to a bunch of bureaucrats to help make it better, the same bureaucrats who fucked it up in the first place, instead of the doctors who actually know what the fuck they're doing.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down.
Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms.
There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time.
Yeah because a government with a trillion dollar deficit is obviously going to be responsible and reform. What people don't understand is that when you see a big problem, the government doesn't give a flying fuck, your problem is a benefit for them. Health care "reform" will be nothing more than a power grab to further ensure they will remain in control, that is what they do. They use the power to further insure and expand their power. They look after their own interests.
People are down on the free market (which does not exist) because they don't like the thought of people and corporations greedily pursuing their own interests...yet they have this nonsensical idea that the government will not pursue things with the same greed? Why? They are all human, you can't change this nature by calling it something else and trusting some bozos in a suit. All it does is give them more money and more power which leads to more ability to be greedy and consume.
Are you capable of nuance at all?
The world is not black and white. Military spending and lack of government oversight with regard to the financial sector has been the major source of the US budget deficit. Social Security is another factor as well.
All of these issues require honest discussion and understanding. Both of which seem foreign to you.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down.
Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms.
There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time.
Yeah because a government with a trillion dollar deficit is obviously going to be responsible and reform. What people don't understand is that when you see a big problem, the government doesn't give a flying fuck, your problem is a benefit for them. Health care "reform" will be nothing more than a power grab to further ensure they will remain in control, that is what they do. They use the power to further insure and expand their power. They look after their own interests.
People are down on the free market (which does not exist) because they don't like the thought of people and corporations greedily pursuing their own interests...yet they have this nonsensical idea that the government will not pursue things with the same greed? Why? They are all human, you can't change this nature by calling it something else and trusting some bozos in a suit. All it does is give them more money and more power which leads to more ability to be greedy and consume.
Are you capable of nuance at all?
The world is not black and white. Military spending and lack of government oversight with regard to the financial sector has been the major source of the US budget deficit. Social Security is another factor as well.
All of these issues require honest discussion and understanding. Both of which seem foreign to you.
No you are the one who lacks understanding, you don't understand that the deficit is good for them, you don't understand that they like how everything has gone. You're mind is just filled with propaganda, like the whole country.
You think discussion will make the problem go away? lol
On January 26 2011 03:20 Treemonkeys wrote: You guys don't even realize that insurance isn't needed, it is just a fucking fat middle man driving prices to the sky.
Do you understand the concept of insurance at all? Do you have car insurance?
Do realize that insurance isn't some esoteric service forced upon people? Risk distribution is a staggeringly easy idea to comprehend.
Stop spouting unsubstantiated generalities. Try to explain in detail how insurance companies drive up the cost of medical treatment.
One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is that it makes insurance companies unprofitable by forcing them to insure people with preexisting conditions
LOL covering people with pre-existing conditions (aka your fucking diabetic grandmother) is a PROBLEM?
Jesus christ. You can either have half the country getting fucked by pre-existing conditions or you can mandate everyone has to have health insurance at all times so they cannot just apply when something is wrong. There is no middle ground.
From an economic point of view, forcing PRIVATE INSURERS (ie companies) to take on increased costs is a big problem. What would you do if you, as a business owner, were told by the government that you were going to be forced to eat a bunch of costs that drastically reduce your profitability (if not eliminate it entirely)?
Your post is typical of the whole problem with the health care debate. Too many people get wrapped up in emotions and the "feel good" intentions without thinking about what actually is economically feasible. It's a very small-minded approach to the debate.
Any reform of healthcare necessarily requires sacrifices. Right now, a lot of people don't fully understand what Obamacare sacrificed, yet more and more are figuring it out and discovering that they don't like it.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down.
Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms.
There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time.
Yeah because a government with a trillion dollar deficit is obviously going to be responsible and reform. What people don't understand is that when you see a big problem, the government doesn't give a flying fuck, your problem is a benefit for them. Health care "reform" will be nothing more than a power grab to further ensure they will remain in control, that is what they do. They use the power to further insure and expand their power. They look after their own interests.
People are down on the free market (which does not exist) because they don't like the thought of people and corporations greedily pursuing their own interests...yet they have this nonsensical idea that the government will not pursue things with the same greed? Why? They are all human, you can't change this nature by calling it something else and trusting some bozos in a suit. All it does is give them more money and more power which leads to more ability to be greedy and consume.
Are you capable of nuance at all?
The world is not black and white. Military spending and lack of government oversight with regard to the financial sector has been the major source of the US budget deficit. Social Security is another factor as well.
All of these issues require honest discussion and understanding. Both of which seem foreign to you.
No you are the one who lacks understanding, you don't understand that the deficit is good for them, you don't understand that they like how everything has gone. You're mind is just filled with propaganda, like the whole country.
You think discussion will make the problem go away? lol
You think what you're doing is helping people understand the issue at all?
Your entire ideology is self-defeating. You rail on about how those in power are taking advantage of the public's ignorance through propaganda, yet you belittle the value of honest debate.
On January 26 2011 03:20 Treemonkeys wrote: You guys don't even realize that insurance isn't needed, it is just a fucking fat middle man driving prices to the sky.
Do you understand the concept of insurance at all? Do you have car insurance?
Do realize that insurance isn't some esoteric service forced upon people? Risk distribution is a staggeringly easy idea to comprehend.
Stop spouting unsubstantiated generalities. Try to explain in detail how insurance companies drive up the cost of medical treatment.
Yeah I have car insurance to save me from the risk of getting my car towed and going to jail. You have no idea how our financial system works.
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down.
Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms.
There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time.
Yeah because a government with a trillion dollar deficit is obviously going to be responsible and reform. What people don't understand is that when you see a big problem, the government doesn't give a flying fuck, your problem is a benefit for them. Health care "reform" will be nothing more than a power grab to further ensure they will remain in control, that is what they do. They use the power to further insure and expand their power. They look after their own interests.
People are down on the free market (which does not exist) because they don't like the thought of people and corporations greedily pursuing their own interests...yet they have this nonsensical idea that the government will not pursue things with the same greed? Why? They are all human, you can't change this nature by calling it something else and trusting some bozos in a suit. All it does is give them more money and more power which leads to more ability to be greedy and consume.
Are you capable of nuance at all?
The world is not black and white. Military spending and lack of government oversight with regard to the financial sector has been the major source of the US budget deficit. Social Security is another factor as well.
All of these issues require honest discussion and understanding. Both of which seem foreign to you.
No you are the one who lacks understanding, you don't understand that the deficit is good for them, you don't understand that they like how everything has gone. You're mind is just filled with propaganda, like the whole country.
You think discussion will make the problem go away? lol
You think what you're doing is helping people understand the issue at all?
Your entire ideology is self-defeating. You rail on about how those in power are taking advantage of the public's ignorance through propaganda, yet you belittle the value of honest debate.
I don't have time to unwind your lifetime of propaganda, you have to put in some effort.
From an economic point of view, forcing PRIVATE INSURERS (ie companies) to take on increased costs is a big problem. What would you do if you, as a business owner, were told by the government that you were going to be forced to eat a bunch of costs that drastically reduce your profitability (if not eliminate it entirely)?
Increased costs, yes... but mandating people to get health insurance also.. increases subscribers (aka profits?) as to whether it's balanced out I have no idea that might be doubtful though considering how many people are currently fucked out of the system with a pre-existing condition.
One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is that it makes insurance companies unprofitable by forcing them to insure people with preexisting conditions
LOL covering people with pre-existing conditions (aka your fucking diabetic grandmother) is a PROBLEM?
Jesus christ. You can either have half the country getting fucked by pre-existing conditions or you can mandate everyone has to have health insurance at all times so they cannot just apply when something is wrong. There is no middle ground.
From an economic point of view, forcing PRIVATE INSURERS (ie companies) to take on increased costs is a big problem. What would you do if you, as a business owner, were told by the government that you were going to be forced to eat a bunch of costs that drastically reduce your profitability (if not eliminate it entirely)?
Your post is typical of the whole problem with the health care debate. Too many people get wrapped up in emotions and the "feel good" intentions without thinking about what actually is economically feasible. It's a very small-minded approach to the debate.
Any reform of healthcare necessarily requires sacrifices. Right now, a lot of people don't fully understand what Obamacare sacrificed, yet more and more are figuring it out and discovering that they don't like it.
Ideally is one or the other. Either federal health coverage expands enough to offer coverage for any citizen or stricter regulations must be placed on private insurers. The case of both at once is better than none at all in my mind.
Super ideally government health care becomes good enough and managed well enough to run all private insurers out of business. Theoretically speaking, due to the fact that the federal healthcare is capable of running at a loss, I don't see why legitimate reform would not see the end of private insurance.
You can actually get pretty cheap healthcare just by negotiating with a doctor and telling him you will pay cash up front, because they don't have to use their staff's time just to get paid, and every insurance claim is a sizable risk for the doctor. But the majority of people don't even think to try this because they are living off debt and have no cash, and are too brainwashed.
And to all those european welfare countries let me ask you this. can you countries really afford government/free healthcare? doesnt seem like it the way the PIIGS are failing.
It's not like the government pays the health insurance out of it's backpocket, in the countries i know about there are one or more nonprofit insurance organisations that are not government-run, but under strict rules and laws. Because everyone is paying in it, and it must not make profit, the average cost of the insurance per Person is lower. Some people of course pay more than they would in a purely private system (mainly healthy young males), but that pays off anyway because you might not always be in that position, especially if you ever want to have a family.
Ratings are falling because of banks being saved for the "wellbeing" of the people and general mismanagement by governments...
No one will make a profit? Really? All it is is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle man, a middle man who doesn't work for free. When does the middle man ever make something cheaper? Never. Get rid of the bureaucratic middle men and health care costs would be a fraction of what they are now. But they government won't do it, they have no incentive too, there are too many people making off the system as it is, and the common people are mostly too stupid and brainwashed to even know what's good for them. They have people begging for more management as if it will make anything cheaper or better, as if this management is gonna work for free.
Although it's true that Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive and inefficiently managed, its arguable whether or not a free-market system would drive costs down.
Medical care is inelastic. People will pay anything not to die. If there is no government hand in the health-care industry, a significant portion of the population who cannot afford insurance will just die in their homes or outside emergency rooms.
There needs to be government health-care reform rather than abolishment. Social Security and Medicare are running on borrowed time.
Yeah because a government with a trillion dollar deficit is obviously going to be responsible and reform. What people don't understand is that when you see a big problem, the government doesn't give a flying fuck, your problem is a benefit for them. Health care "reform" will be nothing more than a power grab to further ensure they will remain in control, that is what they do. They use the power to further insure and expand their power. They look after their own interests.
People are down on the free market (which does not exist) because they don't like the thought of people and corporations greedily pursuing their own interests...yet they have this nonsensical idea that the government will not pursue things with the same greed? Why? They are all human, you can't change this nature by calling it something else and trusting some bozos in a suit. All it does is give them more money and more power which leads to more ability to be greedy and consume.
Are you capable of nuance at all?
The world is not black and white. Military spending and lack of government oversight with regard to the financial sector has been the major source of the US budget deficit. Social Security is another factor as well.
All of these issues require honest discussion and understanding. Both of which seem foreign to you.
No you are the one who lacks understanding, you don't understand that the deficit is good for them, you don't understand that they like how everything has gone. You're mind is just filled with propaganda, like the whole country.
You think discussion will make the problem go away? lol
You think what you're doing is helping people understand the issue at all?
Your entire ideology is self-defeating. You rail on about how those in power are taking advantage of the public's ignorance through propaganda, yet you belittle the value of honest debate.
I don't have time to unwind your lifetime of propaganda, you have to put in some effort.
Dude, you look like you're full or crap. If you have some crazy views that obviously aren't going to be easily accepted, you better do a damn good job making a convincing argument. Posts like that simply make you look like a troll.
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
This is so true. My job is basically an example of worthless red tape bullshit getting paid way more then I should off the backs of denied claims and pissed off patients and doctors. At least I'm not in some fantasy land like the rest of the goddamn people I work with about how much they "help the community" and "act ethically". Yea, denying little timmy with leukemia for pre-existing is reeeaaal ethical, you fucks.
On January 26 2011 03:20 Treemonkeys wrote: You guys don't even realize that insurance isn't needed, it is just a fucking fat middle man driving prices to the sky.
Do you understand the concept of insurance at all? Do you have car insurance?
Do realize that insurance isn't some esoteric service forced upon people? Risk distribution is a staggeringly easy idea to comprehend.
Stop spouting unsubstantiated generalities. Try to explain in detail how insurance companies drive up the cost of medical treatment.
QED:
Firstly: Insurance companies have people working at them who have jobs, share holders who make money, CEOs who get obscene bonuses. Where does this money come from? The extra % that insurance companies charge you to manage your own risk.
This increases the cost to people who wish to have healthcare.
I feel really sorry for people who would ever shed a tear for insurance companies.
On January 26 2011 03:20 Treemonkeys wrote: You guys don't even realize that insurance isn't needed, it is just a fucking fat middle man driving prices to the sky.
Do you understand the concept of insurance at all? Do you have car insurance?
Do realize that insurance isn't some esoteric service forced upon people? Risk distribution is a staggeringly easy idea to comprehend.
Stop spouting unsubstantiated generalities. Try to explain in detail how insurance companies drive up the cost of medical treatment.
Yeah I have car insurance to save me from the risk of getting my car towed and going to jail. You have no idea how our financial system works.
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Yup because dead men never pay :D
But can you incur the 15k cost to pay for your medical treatment in a timely manner like an insurance company can? a hospital can't rack up debt treating patients who only slowly pay them back, if they did that they would have to limit the number and the quality of people they can see else the hospital would go defunct. In other-words i'm in-favor of a single payer.
I'm from and live in Portugal and we might have one of the worse health systems in europe and we might even be a 3rd world country for some americans but here if i brake a leg, have aids, have whatever the cancer or just have flu i can go to a hospital or health center and pay not more then 5$ to be inspected by a doctor!
A broken leg would cost me 10$ and i wouldn't pay more for hospitalization etc..
I do have a health insurance but that's because i want a quicker place to go, more confort etc.. but health system actually works here and people don't worry about that.
BTW i can get the same thing in every european country!
On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote: It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise.
Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more):
- doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid
the problem is the "middle man" is even more of a stingy cheap moneygrubbing piece of shit than the patient is/could be.
edit: the reason goes back to the paradoxical relationship between the companies shareholders and their customers i outlined a page or two ago ;b
From an economic point of view, forcing PRIVATE INSURERS (ie companies) to take on increased costs is a big problem. What would you do if you, as a business owner, were told by the government that you were going to be forced to eat a bunch of costs that drastically reduce your profitability (if not eliminate it entirely)?
Increased costs, yes... but mandating people to get health insurance also.. increases subscribers (aka profits?) as to whether it's balanced out I have no idea that might be doubtful though considering how many people are currently fucked out of the system with a pre-existing condition.
You have doubts as to whether the increased costs are balanced out by the increased subscriber base? Do you really work for an insurance company? My goodness....
Here's an excerpt from a paper that I wrote on the subject:
Conversely, those subscribers that are unprofitable to the insurers can be very unprofitable. It has been estimated that the top 10% most expensive patients account for 69% of all health care costs. Even more striking is the fact that 1% of patients account for 25% of all health care costs. Today, some private insurance companies face even more disproportionate payout schedules. For example, Blue Shield of California has reported that approximately 90% of their distributions go to 10% of their insured patients. “End of life care,” health care given to a patient in final weeks before death, accounts for approximately 10-12% of total health care costs and 27% of Medicare costs. Statistically, 1 in every 1000 households will receive a “shock” of medical expenses totaling at least $125,000 in present value during any given year.
Do you still doubt that insurance companies got the short end of the stick?
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
Not every country has free dental, even if they have free healthcare. Canada doesn't. Unless it's life threatening dental-infection, I'd imagine. Then we'd get it for free. Pulling teeth, though? Not covered.
Any europeans want to tell us about their dental situations? How about optical? It's not free here
On January 26 2011 03:20 Treemonkeys wrote: You guys don't even realize that insurance isn't needed, it is just a fucking fat middle man driving prices to the sky.
Do you understand the concept of insurance at all? Do you have car insurance?
Do realize that insurance isn't some esoteric service forced upon people? Risk distribution is a staggeringly easy idea to comprehend.
Stop spouting unsubstantiated generalities. Try to explain in detail how insurance companies drive up the cost of medical treatment.
Yeah I have car insurance to save me from the risk of getting my car towed and going to jail. You have no idea how our financial system works.
It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Middle men don't lower cost, instead they provide a service for the extra cost. (transport, quality control, risk management, or even shopping for the best price.. in which case they do lower cost slightly.)
Patient pays doctor... doesn't work when the doctor's bill is more than the patient can afford.
Currently everyone in the US has "emergency room" health insurance...ie the emergency room has to take you and stabilize you, regardless of whether or not you can pay the bills. If you can't the hospital eats the cost.
Health Insurance is good since occassionally you get a catastrophic expense.
However, a health insurance that Only covers catastrophic expenses is not good because prevention is a Big part of health... so a smart insurance company would rather pay for regular checkups than the big problem. (Auto insurance isn't like that, regular oil changes aren't that big a part of avoiding crashes).
Like any insurance there is fraud, claims for things not actually needed, and that needs to be cut down on.
The idea of forcing everyone to be "in the system*" works, but you also need to make sure there is competition (breaking companies up... competing across state lines won't help.. then you just have the same few across the US operating from South Dakota like banks)
Premiums then need to be able to be based on things people individually do to affect their own health (weight, smoking, drinking, sexual activity, etc.) Let the insurance company give reduced rates if you show you are taking care of yourself.
*unless they can demonstrate ~$1 million of assets that they can use to pay for their own medical care.
On January 26 2011 03:20 Treemonkeys wrote: You guys don't even realize that insurance isn't needed, it is just a fucking fat middle man driving prices to the sky.
Do you understand the concept of insurance at all? Do you have car insurance?
Do realize that insurance isn't some esoteric service forced upon people? Risk distribution is a staggeringly easy idea to comprehend.
Stop spouting unsubstantiated generalities. Try to explain in detail how insurance companies drive up the cost of medical treatment.
QED:
Firstly: Insurance companies have people working at them who have jobs, share holders who make money, CEOs who get obscene bonuses. Where does this money come from? The extra % that insurance companies charge you to manage your own risk.
This increases the cost to people who wish to have healthcare.
I feel really sorry for people who would ever shed a tear for insurance companies.
I'm speaking of the cost of the treatment itself, not of the cost to the patient.
You do realize that from an expected cost probability model insurance is almost never worth for the purchaser?
The total price of insurance is always more expensive than the 'average' case being that you live the bulk of your life without any serious medical conditions and die quietly of some terminal illness. The point of insurance is to INSURE that you don't get massively screwed if an 'unlikely' event is to ever happen.
Well another huge problem is america doesn't give a shit how unhealthy we are. More people exercising on a daily basis and not chain smoking cigarettes with their McDonalds would be by far the best cost saving measure anyone could do. But hey look at that republicans had to talk shit about Mrs obamas plan to get kids eating healthy too (and by republicans i just mean sarah palin).
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
Not every country has free dental, even if they have free healthcare. Canada doesn't. Unless it's life threatening dental-infection, I'd imagine. Then we'd get it for free. Pulling teeth, though? Not covered.
Any europeans want to tell us about their dental situations? How about optical? It's not free here
In Portugal only the poorer have the right to dental healthcare! i mean everybody can do it but it's such a big line that nowadays only the poorer get that chance and sometimes the goverment give you what we call "health check" that gives a big discount in private dental clinic!
imagine treatment is 50$ and you get from the state 30$ so you only pay 20$!
what happens from state to state in the USA?
imagine you have a low heathcare insurance and you live in NY and you go snowboarding in colorado and you brake a leg!
how much would that cost you?
bah i hate your system so bad i just want to punch our system to you guys by force ;D
The problem with these threads is that they are one-sided. Anything a conervative does or tries is blasphemy on this forum. Not once have I seen a thread talking about how FAIL our government has been the past two years and the fact that they have done nothing to help our country. And the real kick in the butt is the fact that most of you think healthcare is free anywhere. Nothing is free. You still pay for it. In America most people don't want the government to take over another sector of our private industry. I'm by no means saying that insurance needs an overhaul but the track record of our government shows that this route is awful. Look at any subsidized program and the US and recognize that is is failing. Recognize that you will take the hit down the road and have to pay for all these so called perks you think people are getting. The fact is a production society requires capital growth, education and the WILL TO WORK. That is slowly fading away in this country.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
Not every country has free dental, even if they have free healthcare. Canada doesn't. Unless it's life threatening dental-infection, I'd imagine. Then we'd get it for free. Pulling teeth, though? Not covered.
Any europeans want to tell us about their dental situations? How about optical? It's not free here
In Portugal only the poorer have the right to dental healthcare! i mean everybody can do it but it's such a big line that nowadays only the poorer get that chance and sometimes the goverment give you what we call "health check" that gives a big discount in private dental clinic!
imagine treatment is 50$ and you get from the state 30$ so you only pay 20$!
what happens from state to state in the USA?
imagine you have a low heathcare insurance and you live in NY and you go snowboarding in colorado and you brake a leg!
how much would that cost you?
bah i hate your system so bad i just want to punch our system to you guys by force ;D
No offense if you can't fork out the extra 20$ or so you've got bigger problems...
AND portugal has Ronaldo. GOD DAMN that is OP. Nerf portugal.
but to play devil's advocate on your post Shell, i think a lot of people would say portugal has 10 million people and america has 300 million fatasses so it might not work out quite as well for us as you guys ;D
On January 26 2011 03:53 DamnCats wrote: Well another huge problem is america doesn't give a shit how unhealthy we are. More people exercising on a daily basis and not chain smoking cigarettes with their McDonalds would be by far the best cost saving measure anyone could do. But hey look at that republicans had to talk shit about Mrs obamas plan to get kids eating healthy too (and by republicans i just mean sarah palin).
Part of that is that there is no incentive to be healthy. If insurance companies were able to price discriminate based on lifestyle, you can bet that people would get themselves into shape. No price discrimination = no disincentive.
On January 26 2011 04:01 t3hwUn wrote: The problem with these threads is that they are one-sided. Anything a conervative does or tries is blasphemy on this forum. Not once have I seen a thread talking about how FAIL our government has been the past two years and the fact that they have done nothing to help our country. And the real kick in the butt is the fact that most of you think healthcare is free anywhere. Nothing is free. You still pay for it. In America most people don't want the government to take over another sector of our private industry. I'm by no means saying that insurance needs an overhaul but the track record of our government shows that this route is awful. Look at any subsidized program and the US and recognize that is is failing. Recognize that you will take the hit down the road and have to pay for all these so called perks you think people are getting. The fact is a production society requires capital growth, education and the WILL TO WORK. That is slowly fading away in this country.
I'm not sure what you're expecting from a bunch of high school and college students who haven't really been out in the real world yet. =)
Lack of affability in the US health care system is before any health care is delivered. It is in paying insurance premiums. Insurance companies do three things for customers. They use their network to provide connections to doctors to their customers. They manage risk by distributing it over a population and minimize risk by prevention or mitigation. They manage moral hazard by setting policies that make it harder for fraud or unnecessary expenses.
Most of the problem with the US health care system is in moral hazards or reduced ability to manage risk because states forbid certain risk-management tactics. In fact the hardest part of running a health insurance company is designing a semi-appealing policy towards moral hazard. That is what is driving HMO profits because moral hazard reduction in the present system requires a lot of ingenuity.
On January 26 2011 03:51 Krikkitone wrote: Premiums then need to be able to be based on things people individually do to affect their own health (weight, smoking, drinking, sexual activity, etc.) Let the insurance company give reduced rates if you show you are taking care of yourself.
This is just one example of moral hazard in a system that is stuffed full of them. Group insurance rates and ESP are terrible concoctions that really really hamper proper risk management. The army of uninsured is symptom of failed health care policy rather than the heart of the problem.
I've experienced both American and Swedish healthcare systems. I get the same quality of care, but in the US I can only go to facilities that accept my insurance, otherwise I'm paying hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket for things as simple as an asthma treatment. In Sweden I can go anywhere and it's all included in my income tax.
On January 26 2011 04:01 t3hwUn wrote: The problem with these threads is that they are one-sided. Anything a conervative does or tries is blasphemy on this forum. Not once have I seen a thread talking about how FAIL our government has been the past two years and the fact that they have done nothing to help our country. And the real kick in the butt is the fact that most of you think healthcare is free anywhere. Nothing is free. You still pay for it. In America most people don't want the government to take over another sector of our private industry. I'm by no means saying that insurance needs an overhaul but the track record of our government shows that this route is awful. Look at any subsidized program and the US and recognize that is is failing. Recognize that you will take the hit down the road and have to pay for all these so called perks you think people are getting. The fact is a production society requires capital growth, education and the WILL TO WORK. That is slowly fading away in this country.
This discussion is about health care. Globalization is another matter entirely.
Private industry is failing in the United States because wages are too high for the products we produce. This will not change regardless of government subsidies or lack there of. 'Conservatives' want to cut education and R&D rather than military spending. They would rather be rid of social services and infrastructure projects than deny funds to the military-industrial complex.
On January 26 2011 04:01 t3hwUn wrote: The problem with these threads is that they are one-sided. Anything a conervative does or tries is blasphemy on this forum. Not once have I seen a thread talking about how FAIL our government has been the past two years and the fact that they have done nothing to help our country.
You'll have some allies if you make a good argument. It helps not to go into a rant about the unfair attitude of the forum consensus. It's better to look for possible allies with common ground than try to argue with someone that you will only talk past. Half of these arguments aren't real debate but posturing and grandstanding.
On January 26 2011 04:01 t3hwUn wrote: The problem with these threads is that they are one-sided. Anything a conervative does or tries is blasphemy on this forum. Not once have I seen a thread talking about how FAIL our government has been the past two years and the fact that they have done nothing to help our country. And the real kick in the butt is the fact that most of you think healthcare is free anywhere. Nothing is free. You still pay for it. In America most people don't want the government to take over another sector of our private industry. I'm by no means saying that insurance needs an overhaul but the track record of our government shows that this route is awful. Look at any subsidized program and the US and recognize that is is failing. Recognize that you will take the hit down the road and have to pay for all these so called perks you think people are getting. The fact is a production society requires capital growth, education and the WILL TO WORK. That is slowly fading away in this country.
No offense if you can't fork out the extra 20$ or so you've got bigger problems...
I am utterly confused by your post.
Government has done nothing the past few years? -I was about to list the accomplishments but you have obviously not even tried to look into it.
And "healthcare is free" has never been quoted by any democrat/republican so I don't know what your talking about, you are literally ranting about a point no one has made.
Then you end it off with a typical ignorant thought about what is really the problem, a problem never quoted by a Republican or Democrat, but needs to be solved. This thought has no statistical data, in fact, you are 100% wrong. Americans work 5-10 hours MORE than their parents did weekly on average.
I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
Yeah I have car insurance to save me from the risk of getting my car towed and going to jail. You have no idea how our financial system works.
Actually, you have car insurance to pay Tom Hanks 200,000 dollars if you t-bone his brand new car.
Many states make it illegal to drive without insurance even if you completely own your car and have the money to pay for liability in case of accidents. For some people, the most compelling reason to have insurance is not to have car towed or going to jail.
The same is true for Massachusetts and health insurance. People are forced into buying affordable health insurance in Massachusetts or face paying an equally daunting fine.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
Not every country has free dental, even if they have free healthcare. Canada doesn't. Unless it's life threatening dental-infection, I'd imagine. Then we'd get it for free. Pulling teeth, though? Not covered.
Any europeans want to tell us about their dental situations? How about optical? It's not free here
I have free health care, but not dental. As is commonly the case in Europe.
Wasn't really trying to make a point or anything. ^^
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
Government funded health care is financed through taxes? Mind = blown.
First of all I don't understand how it is fault of the people who voted for the bill that some1 else is going to veto it?
Second, there is no free healthcare instead of individuals paying for their own healthcare every1 pays for every1s healthcare this is the way in Finland too. I think it is good when some1 injures in accident, but it also discourages people to take care of their own health because they don't need worry about the hospital bills.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
It's not the "Obama care bill" this is the recent changes.
Basically stuff like updating insurance policies, increasing medicare aid. And stopping insurance companies from increasing premiums without warning or valid reason.... ....
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Conversely, those subscribers that are unprofitable to the insurers can be very unprofitable. It has been estimated that the top 10% most expensive patients account for 69% of all health care costs. Even more striking is the fact that 1% of patients account for 25% of all health care costs. Today, some private insurance companies face even more disproportionate payout schedules. For example, Blue Shield of California has reported that approximately 90% of their distributions go to 10% of their insured patients. “End of life care,” health care given to a patient in final weeks before death, accounts for approximately 10-12% of total health care costs and 27% of Medicare costs. Statistically, 1 in every 1000 households will receive a “shock” of medical expenses totaling at least $125,000 in present value during any given year.
Err, should I laugh or cry at this? Of course the §expensive patients" cause more costs. That's why they are called "expensive", in the first place. This is like a car insurance company saying: "Those idiots that have accidents cost us much more than people who dont't". Go figure.
The whole idea of health insurance is that you pay money into a big pool because you can then afford treatment that is expensive. You risk paying more than you get out, at the same time, if you are lucky enough not to suffer from serious illness. The solution is not to kick out the poeple who cost too much, obviously, because that would make the whole idea pointless.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
Without the insurance mandate, the bill was going to destroy the health care insurance industry by regulating it to the point where risk management, risk mitigation, and moral hazard mitigation become nearly impossible. When that happens, you'd have a max exodus of customers from health insurance because it becomes preposterous in costs. The insurance mandate is the only way the industry would be able to survive in such an environment.
Health care mandate is unconstitutional. The federal government has no such power in the Constitution, but I don't think the federal government feels at all constrained by the Constitution. I'd put some effort into arguing constitutionality if I felt that it was going to be respect at all.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
Yes, please listen to what this guy says. Healthcare is never free. It is merely the question who pays for it and whether everyone pays the same amount ot whether you pay according to your income.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance?
On January 26 2011 04:43 Electric.Jesus wrote: Yes, please listen to what this guy says. Healthcare is never free. It is merely the question who pays for it and whether everyone pays the same amount ot whether you pay according to your income.
This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive?
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
It's not the "Obama care bill" this is the recent changes.
Basically stuff like updating insurance policies, increasing medicare aid. And stopping insurance companies from increasing premiums without warning or valid reason.... ....
o.o
Sorry, I got confused. I haven't been following this much, and someone was telling me last night the Obamacare thing was being challenged, so I just assumed... T_T
On January 26 2011 03:48 xDaunt wrote: Here's an excerpt from a paper that I wrote on the subject:
Conversely, those subscribers that are unprofitable to the insurers can be very unprofitable. It has been estimated that the top 10% most expensive patients account for 69% of all health care costs. Even more striking is the fact that 1% of patients account for 25% of all health care costs. Today, some private insurance companies face even more disproportionate payout schedules. For example, Blue Shield of California has reported that approximately 90% of their distributions go to 10% of their insured patients. “End of life care,” health care given to a patient in final weeks before death, accounts for approximately 10-12% of total health care costs and 27% of Medicare costs. Statistically, 1 in every 1000 households will receive a “shock” of medical expenses totaling at least $125,000 in present value during any given year.
Err, should I laugh or cry at this? Of course the §expensive patients" cause more costs. That's why they are called "expensive", in the first place. This is like a car insurance company saying: "Those idiots that have accidents cost us much more than people who dont't". Go figure.
The whole idea of health insurance is that you pay money into a big pool because you can then afford treatment that is expensive. You risk paying more than you get out, at the same time, if you are lucky enough not to suffer from serious illness. The solution is not to kick out the poeple who cost too much, obviously, because that would make the whole idea pointless.
Yea I don't understand the point either. Of course there are way more sick people than healthy people. There BETTER be, or else the whole insurance thing wouldn't work at all. The "cheap" patients are healthy people who probably don't even cost the insurance company any money. It's supposed to be like that.
And really, that has nothing to do with how incredibly expensive healthcare is. For those 1%, you better hope that they have healthcare.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance?
So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there?
On January 26 2011 03:48 xDaunt wrote: Here's an excerpt from a paper that I wrote on the subject:
Conversely, those subscribers that are unprofitable to the insurers can be very unprofitable. It has been estimated that the top 10% most expensive patients account for 69% of all health care costs. Even more striking is the fact that 1% of patients account for 25% of all health care costs. Today, some private insurance companies face even more disproportionate payout schedules. For example, Blue Shield of California has reported that approximately 90% of their distributions go to 10% of their insured patients. “End of life care,” health care given to a patient in final weeks before death, accounts for approximately 10-12% of total health care costs and 27% of Medicare costs. Statistically, 1 in every 1000 households will receive a “shock” of medical expenses totaling at least $125,000 in present value during any given year.
Err, should I laugh or cry at this? Of course the §expensive patients" cause more costs. That's why they are called "expensive", in the first place. This is like a car insurance company saying: "Those idiots that have accidents cost us much more than people who dont't". Go figure.
The whole idea of health insurance is that you pay money into a big pool because you can then afford treatment that is expensive. You risk paying more than you get out, at the same time, if you are lucky enough not to suffer from serious illness. The solution is not to kick out the poeple who cost too much, obviously, because that would make the whole idea pointless.
Yea I don't understand the point either. Of course there are way more sick people than healthy people. There BETTER be, or else the whole insurance thing wouldn't work at all. The "cheap" patients are healthy people who probably don't even cost the insurance company any money. It's supposed to be like that.
And really, that has nothing to do with how incredibly expensive healthcare is. For those 1%, you better hope that they have healthcare.
The point is that if you're going to saddle the insurance companies with a bunch of unhealth patients (ie, people with preexisting conditions), you necessarily are driving up their costs. This leads to one or multiple of the following:
1) premium increases for everyone else 2) cuts in benefits for everyone else 3) the insurance companies going out of business because they're unable to reconcile their liabilities with their subscriber base.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance?
So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there?
The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there
On January 26 2011 04:50 DoubleReed wrote: And really, that has nothing to do with how incredibly expensive healthcare is. For those 1%, you better hope that they have healthcare.
Insurance and health care are two different things. I know people conflate the two all the time.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance?
So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there?
The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there
On January 26 2011 04:52 xDaunt wrote: The point is that if you're going to saddle the insurance companies with a bunch of unhealth patients (ie, people with preexisting conditions), you necessarily are driving up their costs. This leads to one or multiple of the following:
1) premium increases for everyone else 2) cuts in benefits for everyone else 3) the insurance companies going out of business because they're unable to reconcile their liabilities with their subscriber base.
Do you see the problem now?
I don't see a problem with blowing up the health insurance business model. I think the US would be better off without health insurance as the choice mode of coordinating health care costs.
This is already happening. And will continue to happen. They do not care if they price customers out of their business. The remaining customers will keep them profitable.
On January 26 2011 04:43 Electric.Jesus wrote: Yes, please listen to what this guy says. Healthcare is never free. It is merely the question who pays for it and whether everyone pays the same amount ot whether you pay according to your income.
This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive?
The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of.
On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote: This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive?
The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance?
So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there?
The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
I agree! Also, if you want to have the benefits of living in a free country, you should have to go yourself and fight in the Middle East to keep our country safe from terrorists! What's this socialist bullshit with other people fighting FOR you? I'm not running some kind of lemonade stand to send YOUR kid to Afghanistan!
Taxes for roads? Education? Fuck that noise! If I want my kid to have an education I'll hire a tutor. I'll build my own roads, for my own use. You're an immigrant? Lost your money through a scam or poor choices? That's your shit to deal with, go back to your country / wise the hell up!
I am also enraged that we pay taxes to house criminals but don't have the logical depth to realize the only other options are executing drunks and just letting them be.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
This is already happening. And will continue to happen. THEY DONT CARE IF THEY PRICE CUSTOMERS OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS. The remaining customers will keep them profitable.
Of course these things were already happening due to other factors that Obamacare doesn't even address (which is Obamacare's critical failing). However, mandating that insurance companies accept patients with preexisting conditions obviously exacerbates these problems.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance?
So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there?
The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there
On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote: This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive?
The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of.
Just who is being insulated from risk here?
People with unhealthy habits.
??? unhealthy people are obviously risking their health. It's not like you come away from a hospital all chipper and magically wonderful.
Don't you think it's a bit more risky to not encourage people to go to the doctor? I mean almost all serious diseases can be mitigated a lot more if people catch them early.
Edit: And seriously what magical world do you live in? Nobody thinks to themselves "Yea, it's fine, I got free healthcare. Smokin' ain't gonna kill me." This just isn't realistic.
On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote: This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive?
The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of.
Just who is being insulated from risk here?
People with unhealthy habits.
That's a pretty stretching application of moral hazard.
So you claim that universal health care encourages people to be unhealthy? I have difficulty believing that.
Medical costs are rising in the United States and yet people aren't living any healthier.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote: No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
The government does no such thing - unless the government is also going to get into the business of fixing insurance premium prices. The insurance premiums are going to be just as expensive and individuals who found insurance too expensive will be forced to buy it or face a stiff penalty. The bill also introduces even more moral hazard into the system.
On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote: This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive?
The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of.
Just who is being insulated from risk here?
People with unhealthy habits.
Yap, you have a piint there. You could argue - and rightfully so - that they have an incentive to keep up their unhealthy behavior. The question is whether free health care is their sole motivation which I highly doubt (and you, too, hopefully). You could also argue that avoiding chronic disease (or premature death) is a strong incentive. Also, unhealythy behavior can be avoided by other means such as education (specific education about health risks has worked pretty well in german schools).
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Uhh.... but didn't the supreme court judges rule that it does pass Constitutional muster? And don't they know a hell of a lot more about law, the constitution, and executive power than both of us?'
Though, is there any kind of dissenting opinion or anything that would support you?
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance?
So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there?
The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there
And 14 other similar challenges were dismissed by other federal judges.
Let me reiterate:
You claim that this bill FORCES people to buy PRIVATE health insurance. There is no such provision.
How are you missing the fact that the federal judge was ruling on the precise provision that you claim does not exist?
The provision states that citizens must be covered under health insurance. It does not in anyway state that citizens must buy private health insurance as you so implied.
The ruling is completely political. I don't see how the mandate in any way exceeds the power of Congress of regulate commerce.
On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote: It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise.
Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more):
- doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
You are clueless as to how insurance claims function if you think doctors don't have to chase their money. Insurance and red tape has made health costs into something that you cannot afford.
On January 26 2011 04:58 TanGeng wrote: People with unhealthy habits.
That's a pretty stretching application of moral hazard. So you claim that universal health care encourages people to be unhealthy? I have difficulty believing that. Medical costs are rising in the United States and yet people aren't living any healthier.
It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it. Take smoking verse non-smoking or drinker verse non-drinker for examples and how universal health care handles the costs associated with differing lifestyles.
The systems in Europe have huge bureaucracies dedicated to mitigating this moral hazard. The bureaucracy also comes with plenty of collateral damage.
If the voters are against the healthcare, ok, their choice, no healthcare it is.
I just don't understand the problem with it? We have it here in Belgium and it works fine. Nobody should be able to go broke, just because they get ill. I mean, you sacrifice some people with"bad luck" with the current system.
Also, current healthcare coöperations in America just sound flawed. But maybe that's just because I'm a lefty who like Michael Moore
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Uhh.... but didn't the supreme court judges rule that it does pass Constitutional muster? And don't they know a hell of a lot more about law, the constitution, and executive power than both of us?'
Though, is there any kind of dissenting opinion or anything that would support you?
The Supreme Court has not ruled on it. And for the record, I am a lawyer.
On January 26 2011 05:08 Treemonkeys wrote: You are clueless as to how insurance claims function if you think doctors don't have to chase their money. Insurance and red tape has made health costs into something that you cannot afford.
It is already not affordable. The red tape is there to reduce moral hazard. Insurance would be more expensive without the red tape. It is the only reason it exists.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
Yeah I have car insurance to save me from the risk of getting my car towed and going to jail. You have no idea how our financial system works.
Actually, you have car insurance to pay Tom Hanks 200,000 dollars if you t-bone his brand new car.
Many states make it illegal to drive without insurance even if you completely own your car and have the money to pay for liability in case of accidents. For some people, the most compelling reason to have insurance is not to have car towed or going to jail.
The same is true for Massachusetts and health insurance. People are forced into buying affordable health insurance in Massachusetts or face paying an equally daunting fine.
Yeah, including my state. If I had all the money I have paid in car insurance, and invested it, I would have more than enough to cover the chance of me being responsible for an accident. Insurance is a poor way to handle it, unless you own an insurance company. It's basically a scam.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
[quote] I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance?
So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there?
The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there
And 14 other similar challenges were dismissed by other federal judges.
Let me reiterate:
You claim that this bill FORCES people to buy PRIVATE health insurance. There is no such provision.
How are you missing the fact that the federal judge was ruling on the precise provision that you claim does not exist?
The provision states that citizens must be covered under health insurance. It does not in anyway state that citizens must buy private health insurance as you so implied.
The ruling is completely political. I don't see how the mandate in any way exceeds the power of Congress of regulate commerce.
You're completely missing the point. Yes, the law technically only says that you must have health insurance without reference to the source. However, what if you work for an employer that does not give health insurance benefits? What if you don't work at all? Do you really need me to connect the rest of the dots for you?
On January 26 2011 05:08 Treemonkeys wrote: You are clueless as to how insurance claims function if you think doctors don't have to chase their money. Insurance and red tape has made health costs into something that you cannot afford.
It is already not affordable. The red tape is there to reduce moral hazard. Insurance would be more expensive without the red tape. It is the only reason it exists.
Yeah "already" after decades of government run healthcare.
How does it make sense to go to the doctor to get help with your health and well being and then at the same time trust bureaucrats to enforce that the doctor is doing things correctly? If you don't trust the doctor, why fucking see him at all?
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
EDIT: Just to be clear, the constitutionality of a law is incredibly important. It's not something that should ever be presumed just for the sake of accomplishing some end.
On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote: It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise.
Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more):
- doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore.
You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies.
On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote: It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it.
So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard.
[EDIT]: Btw the true cost of pretty much everything is disguised by sheer complexity. Nobody thinks about the true cost of not doing regular check ups and the true cost of a large amount of people not being vaccinated is rarely considered by the individual etc.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, and that's a retarded counterexample. Also, I fucking told you I really don't care whether it's constitutional or not because it arguably is or is not.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expect it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote: Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
You know we have the death penalty... And isn't that exactly how we justify it?
It's obviously bullshit (as you point out), but I'm just saying that it seems like a poor example...
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
[quote] I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, that would be a false dilemma.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote: It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it.
So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard.
I don't know if you've met many people from England, but they have teeth as nasty as it gets
Yeah, including my state. If I had all the money I have paid in car insurance, and invested it, I would have more than enough to cover the chance of me being responsible for an accident. Insurance is a poor way to handle it, unless you own an insurance company. It's basically a scam.
If you killed someone in an accident and it was your fault, you would probably have to pay several million dollars. I have a very hard time believing you've paid several million dollars in car insurance premiums.
Anyway, it seems you don't understand the concept of risk aversion. People would much rather pay $1,000/year for 100 years than face a 10% chance of paying $1 million. That's where the insurance company profits come from.
On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote: It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it.
So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard.
There are moral hazards in the US system. There are other extraneous contributing factors beyond the health care sectors, most notably a subsidized and distorted food market.
On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote: [quote]
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, that would be a false dilemma.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care.
Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote: I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
[quote] I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
You know we have the death penalty... And isn't that exactly how we justify it?
It's obviously bullshit (as you point out), but I'm just saying that it seems like a poor example...
The death penalty is only constitutional when used in instances of murder and some cases of rape -- not for theft. It's not a given that the death penalty will be constitutional under any circumstances within 50 years given the development of 8th Amendment jurisprudence.
The point of my example is just because some law or government act seems to be for a good cause does not mean that it is constitutional. There are limits to what the government can do, and the government needs to be held to those limits.
On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote: [quote]
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
You know we have the death penalty... And isn't that exactly how we justify it?
It's obviously bullshit (as you point out), but I'm just saying that it seems like a poor example...
The death penalty is only constitutional when used in instances of murder and some cases of rape -- not for theft. It's not a given that the death penalty will be constitutional under any circumstances within 50 years given the development of 8th Amendment jurisprudence.
The point of my example is just because some law or government act seems to be for a good cause does not mean that it is constitutional. There are limits to what the government can do, and the government needs to be held to those limits.
Yeah, like it's possible to hold the organization with the most map power and the biggest military to any standard.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, that would be a false dilemma.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care.
Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
Yea man, he's talking specifically about the constitutionality of the bill, something I (and probably most people in this thread) can't really claim to know anything about. And seriously you kind of have to get into the nitty gritty of the bill to get into.
The bill is not that simple though. It is not simply "you must buy health insurance." I don't know why Daunt is pretending that it is.
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet?
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, that would be a false dilemma.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care.
Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
See, you're the perfect example of what is wrong with a large portion of the country right now. People want to see things get done without giving a though to whether those acts and news laws are constitutional. The constitution isn't just some ancient piece of paper. It's what ultimately protects us from our government. It's the difference between us and most countries on the planet. Too many people in this country don't even understand where their rights come from and take the constitution for granted. It's really sad.
On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, that would be a false dilemma.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care.
Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
Yea man, he's talking specifically about the constitutionality of the bill, something I (and probably most people in this thread) can't really claim to know anything about. And seriously you kind of have to get into the nitty gritty of the bill to get into.
The bill is not that simple though. It is not simply "you must buy health insurance." I don't know why you're pretending that it is.
The constitution isn't complicated at all. If you can read you should be able to understand it.
On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, that would be a false dilemma.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care.
Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
Yea man, he's talking specifically about the constitutionality of the bill, something I (and probably most people in this thread) can't really claim to know anything about. And seriously you kind of have to get into the nitty gritty of the bill to get into.
The bill is not that simple though. It is not simply "you must buy health insurance." I don't know why you're pretending that it is.
Of course the bill is complex, but it's a large part of the reason it would even function. We can't just repeal it piece by piece and still expect it to function. Everything is complex, but I'm not going to sit here and type out every cause and effect as to why removing portions of it would cause repercussions. I'm not that patient.
Also, the constitution isn't hard to understand. The hard part of the constitution is how far does it extend and interpreting it. Interpretations change over time and if the bill's mandate is to hold up despite already being ruled on by one judge(IIRC), then that would show an evolution in the interpretation of it.
On January 26 2011 05:25 Treemonkeys wrote: Yeah, like it's possible to hold the organization with the most map power and the biggest military to any standard.
Obey the rules, or else!
If the Supreme Court tells the Executive or Legislative branch to do something, they do it. Please list me a single example where they didn't listen to the Supreme Court. The only one I can think of was Andrew Johnson's threat.
According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant.
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay?
That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill.
So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution?
Do you see how bad your argument is now?
No, that would be a false dilemma.
The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning.
Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work?
My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point.
Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care.
Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
Yea man, he's talking specifically about the constitutionality of the bill, something I (and probably most people in this thread) can't really claim to know anything about. And seriously you kind of have to get into the nitty gritty of the bill to get into.
The bill is not that simple though. It is not simply "you must buy health insurance." I don't know why you're pretending that it is.
The constitution isn't complicated at all. If you can read you should be able to understand it.
Oh really? Then sheesh, I could be a Supreme Court Justice if that's all it means!
On January 26 2011 05:30 Treemonkeys wrote: According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant.
Like what? Every single bill passed by Congress has a hook to one of the clauses in the Constitution. Usually interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause, such as the ACA.
On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote: Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless.
What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says?
Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Unreasonable search and seizure.
Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"?
Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into.
Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close.
On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote: It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it.
So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard.
I don't know if you've met many people from England, but they have teeth as nasty as it gets
Obviously you are just trolling, but this is one of the stereotypes US ppl have that I never understood. Been to england many times and never expierienced something like that, would like to know where these stereotypes comes from.
On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote: Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless.
What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says?
Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Unreasonable search and seizure.
Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"?
Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into.
Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close.
Oh trust me, I know that, and criminal procedure is one of the areas of law I hated the most given how utterly inconsistent it can be. But I want to see if Treemonkeys knows what he's talking about or if, as I suspect, he's talking out of his ass.
On January 26 2011 05:30 Treemonkeys wrote: According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant.
Like what? Every single bill passed by Congress has a hook to one of the clauses in the Constitution. Usually interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause, such as the ACA.
It is very specific about what powers it give the federal government, there is no room for magical sophistry to tie all these things together.
On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote: Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless.
What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says?
Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Unreasonable search and seizure.
Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"?
Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into.
Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close.
Oh trust me, I know that, and criminal procedure is one of the areas of law I hated the most given how utterly inconsistent it can be. But I want to see if Treemonkeys knows what he's talking about or if, as I suspect, he's talking out of his ass.
You brought up bad memories of Criminal Procedure. So much reading... FUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuu.
On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote: Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable.
The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again.
Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them.
On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote: It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise.
Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more):
- doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore.
You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies.
Dear Monkey,
how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate.
In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on.
So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant?
On January 26 2011 05:30 Treemonkeys wrote: According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant.
Like what? Every single bill passed by Congress has a hook to one of the clauses in the Constitution. Usually interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause, such as the ACA.
It is very specific about what powers it give the federal government, there is no room for magical sophistry to tie all these things together.
No magical sophistry is necessary. The ACA is "necessary and proper" for Congress to regulate the health care market, which being a national market is "interstate commerce."
On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote: Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless.
What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says?
Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Unreasonable search and seizure.
Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"?
Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into.
Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close.
IE we could bullshit about this for hours and you aren't good enough at understanding sophistry.
On January 26 2011 05:30 Treemonkeys wrote: According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant.
Like what? Every single bill passed by Congress has a hook to one of the clauses in the Constitution. Usually interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause, such as the ACA.
It is very specific about what powers it give the federal government, there is no room for magical sophistry to tie all these things together.
The ACA is "necessary and proper" for Congress to regulate the health care market, which being a national market is "interstate commerce."
We may find out within the next year or two whether this is true. It depends upon whether the Supeme Court accepts that particular issue on cert. However, the Supreme Court will definitely rule on whether the individual mandate is constitutional.
On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote: It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise.
Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more):
- doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore.
You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies.
Dear Monkey,
how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate.
In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on.
So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant?
My point of view needs no strengthening, but alas, the propaganda machine is far more than I could ever compete with. So I say fuck it, and say what I want to say. I have been given an alternate viewpoint that steps outside the daily propaganda, and it is something 99% of americans will never be able or even want to understand. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes people become delusional when they hear it.
I don't know anything about how it works in germany, but I am quite experienced here in the USA, and doctors have to chase their money, and each and every claim is also a risk.
On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote: It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise.
Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more):
- doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore.
You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies.
Dear Monkey,
how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate.
In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on.
So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant?
I don't know anything about how it works in germany, but I am quite experienced here in the USA, and doctors have to chase their money, and each and every claim is also a risk.
On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote: Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless.
What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says?
Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Unreasonable search and seizure.
Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"?
Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into.
Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close.
IE we could bullshit about this for hours and you aren't good enough at understanding sophistry.
Not an insult, just being truthful. It's more like it takes an entire of semester of college to grasp the concept of reasonability because it is often a case-by-case basis based on scenarios. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you close to door on your phone booth. Define curtilage and it's characteristics. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy if a law enforcing agency decides to fly over your base and scout your mans(Lol EPA vs DOW). I can go on all day on this crap, but I don't want to.
Want to know what it means to be reasonable? Read every court case ever decided on it and try to compare it to the patriot act. If you REALLY want to grasp what it takes to understand what is reasonable, enroll in a criminal procedures class and find out then come back and tell us.
If I still had my book, I might actually be willing to link you court cases on searches and seizures.
On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote: It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it.
So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard.
There are moral hazards in the US system. There are other extraneous contributing factors beyond the health care sectors, most notably a subsidized and distorted food market.
So what about "number of broken bones" as an indicator (I'm going to bet that it is pretty much the same in the US as in most parts of Europe, perhaps I'll try to find statistics on this later)? Should this be explained through "riskier culture" so that the American culture would be moral hazardous in itself?
But then again before I digress further, I think you would be hard pressed to show that free healthcare leads to riskier behaviour.
To expand on my edit: The true cost of pretty much everything healthcare related remains hidden from the people even if they pay the full price (my examples were vaccination and regular check ups).
[EDIT]: Really interesting and the timing is so good: TED talk
On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote: It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise.
Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more):
- doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore.
You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies.
Dear Monkey,
how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate.
In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on.
So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant?
My point of view needs no strengthening, but alas, the propaganda machine is far more than I could ever compete with. So I say fuck it, and say what I want to say. I have been given an alternate viewpoint that steps outside the daily propaganda, and it is something 99% of americans will never be able or even want to understand. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes people become delusional when they hear it.
This is what psychologists call a classical projection. Is there the possibility that you merely subsrcibe to another sort of propaganda? Just saying because your arguments are in no way new or extraordinary to me but merely based on a fundamentally different ideology. With regards to understanding them, there is a fundamental difference between acknowledging the internal consistency of your arguments (i.e. understanding them logically) and understanding why you hold those views (lets call that a moral or socio-emotionjal level).
I don't know anything about how it works in germany, but I am quite experienced here in the USA, and doctors have to chase their money, and each and every claim is also a risk.
Well, sorry to hear that people in the US enjoy not paying their bills at the cost of doctors and ultimately the patients. On the other hand, that does not limit the validity of my point in any way.
On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote: Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable.
The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again.
Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them.
WRU critical thinking?
Before I simply say you are wrong (which you mostly are), I'd like some clarification. What sort of "spying" are we talking about? And what do you mean by "be a terrorist"? Is there some process involved?
This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
What's simplistic and childish about satire that is actually true?
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
What's simplistic and childish about satire that is actually true?
Because it's not true and demonstrates a laughable ignorance on the matter?
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
On January 26 2011 06:42 Tralan wrote: Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong?
Well, at the rate health expenditures are increasing, the government will not be able to afford to cover everyone under a single-payer plan without cost controls or health rationing.
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument merely by stating that is is "dumb" just does not work. Your opinion about what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
On January 26 2011 06:42 Tralan wrote: Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong?
I find it to be a very elegant way of summarizing the incredibly complex issue of regulating health care, which includes, but is not limited to, determining relative access to health care, costs to the insured, reimbursement to providers, and care rationing. Again, the reason why we can't just write a law that says "everyone in the US will have coverage for every medical treatment that they desire" is money.
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
I have no idea what you're talking about and I am tempted to say you just haven't been reading the thread. I haven't really heard many talking points at all from the people really participating. It's not like that Scruffy guy is here, and quite frankly the conversation has been pretty damn civil until you came along.
Your post shows naivete and simplicity. Do you know what a ponzi scheme is? As someone who is in favor of health care reform, I ask you not to make the rest of us look bad.
On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
On January 26 2011 06:42 Tralan wrote: Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong?
Well, at the rate health expenditures are increasing, the government will not be able to afford to cover everyone under a single-payer plan without cost controls or health rationing.
Well, this is a problem. But a necessary feature of a problem is the existance of a solution.
Why not implement a system where the state covers as much healthcare for everyone as possible given s certain budget (e.g. 10-15% of the GDP). You can, then, encourage startegies to maximize the "as possible" level, for example by reducing treatment costs, encouraging (and rewarding) healthy behavior etc. And you can always incorporate add-ons, that is, extra insurance of rthose who are able/willing to pay for services that are not covered by the state.
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
What's simplistic and childish about satire that is actually true?
Because it's not true and demonstrates a laughable ignorance on the matter?
Saying it's not true would be demonstrating a laughable understanding of the history of the bill's arguments against before it was passed. A large portion of the country was uninsured, the insurance industry is out to make profits with the bottom tier of the triangle actually running into problems receiving what they paid for. It's quite obvious that people in the business for profit are not going to be completely honest if they can get away with screwing people out of it.
You're also trying to refute the fact that people will do anything to protect their AMURICAN way of life as if it were superior(AKA arguments against Canadian, French, British healthcare). American exceptionalism? I think so. Americans are too ignorant to understand our system has its flaws and that a universal system would not be American or socialist or anything else they can show that has a negative connotation in the states.
On January 26 2011 06:42 Tralan wrote: Yeh saying "because of money" doesnt actually mean anything.
I can do the same thing:
Because of morals
You are saying the government cant afford it or that being taxed to pay for people who choose to be poor is wrong?
Well, at the rate health expenditures are increasing, the government will not be able to afford to cover everyone under a single-payer plan without cost controls or health rationing.
I know that the there is a CBO report which is a bipartisan group which says the health-care reform will reduce the defecit by a hundred billion I think so this would seem to show it is more affordable than the previous medicaid scheme. I have never heard of the term 'health rationing'; is that like you can only use insurance for certain conditions?
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument by stating tzat is is "dumb" just does not work. You opinion what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
LOL! Really? The guy spent most of 2 paragraphs demonizing what is close to my point of view in the most base, simplistic, and childish terms, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding over what the actual debate is. Why am I not allowed to point that out?
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
Most of the actual ideas and goals behind the health care reform aren't even clear because it was drafted behind closed doors with minimal debate. Even so, the intentions aren't really relevant at this point. The real issue is how is health care reform affecting us now.
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument by stating tzat is is "dumb" just does not work. You opinion what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
LOL! Really? The guy spent most of 2 paragraphs demonizing what is close to my point of view in the most base, simplistic, and childish terms, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding over what the actual debate is. Why am I not allowed to point that out?
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
Most of the actual ideas and goals behind the health care reform aren't even clear because it was drafted behind closed doors with minimal debate. Even so, the intentions aren't really relevant at this point. The real issue is how is health care reform affecting us now.
Closed doors.
As if the final bill wasn't posted before voting and you can't understand the reasoning behind why things are in the bill.
Oh wait.
Actually, now that I think of it, you're probable unable to comprehend it given your inability to read what I posted earlier without rambling about something irrelevant.
Bill won't pass through anyway, the senate will shut it down. All the huss and fuss about this is pointless. It's nice to see the Republicans actually doing what they said they were gonna do if they got elected, but as has been brought up many times already, they aren't really. It won't pass through Senate, and there's no chance in hell Obama is gonna let it go through. The reform will come, no matter how much people don't want it to, because just as many if not more US citizens do want it.
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
The budget is nothing more than a skirt to hide behind. If any of you cared about the budget, you'd be hounding congress to fix social security and medicare. Americans simply have this idea that "it's mine and fuck you if you want some too". This became blazingly obvious when the tea party rolled in, with their signs about "get your government hands off my medicare". Or michelle bachmanns farm subsidies, or any of the other hypocrisies that "conservatives" like to brush under the carpet. It's fine if WE (the chosen few, the deserving) get some sort of government aid, but to hell with those other guys who want it. That's what the right has turned into. It's been a long fall from grace since the eisenhower days.
On January 26 2011 06:23 pfods wrote: This thread has basically devolved into people wanting coverage for everyone, versus people who are pulling out republican talking points as to why "obamacare"(heaven forbid you call it by its real name, that would be not demonizing the president and we can't have that) will ruin everyones birthday. No sarcasm, I am surprised no one brought up a thinly veiled argument about death panels, abortion, or assisted suicide (patient murder, as the family values klan likes to say).
The fact is, a large portion of the country is uninsured. And a large portion of this country is over charged, or under covered. The entire insurance industry is one big ponzi scheme, where you constantly invest into it, with diminishing returns(cut offs, certain conditions being discovered after you're accepted for insurance and being dropped, etc). Why some people are absolutely terrified of health care reform, I have no idea. It's probably the people who think paying 1200 a month for a family plan is a sign of success, or the people who have mommy and daddy paying for their insurance. Either way, this refusal to change the system absolutely reeks of american exceptionalism.
Nice job reiterating the talking points in favor of Obamacare. Way to contribute to the discussion.
Ideally, everyone wants every person in this country to be covered. There happens to be an impediment to that goal called "money." We can't just sign a law that gives perfect and complete health coverage to everyone in the country. There's a little bit more to the debate than your simplistic and childish overview of it.
Why not?
Read the sentence before it: $$$
Could you give me a non biased source which shows a complete (both cost and gain)price analysis of the healthcare reform? And could you compare it to the costs of the wars in iraq/aghanistan.
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument by stating tzat is is "dumb" just does not work. You opinion what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
LOL! Really? The guy spent most of 2 paragraphs demonizing what is close to my point of view in the most base, simplistic, and childish terms, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding over what the actual debate is. Why am I not allowed to point that out?
Sorry. This was not specifically directed towards you, I could have taken any other post that contains a form of "you are stupid" but yours was closest to the end of the thread. I may agree with your conclusion but I prefer if an opinion i backed up by rational arguments. And once people start insulting each other over irreconcilable ideologies it is hard to turn back.
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
Most of the actual ideas and goals behind the health care reform aren't even clear because it was drafted behind closed doors with minimal debate. Even so, the intentions aren't really relevant at this point. The real issue is how is health care reform affecting us now.
A good point. However, this is an empiricial question. I assume that answering this would require not to temper with the current system for some time and evaluating the consequences then (always keeping in mind that correlation is not neccessarily causal).
On January 26 2011 03:36 Treemonkeys wrote: It's pretty simple.
You have a doctor, you have a patient.
Which costs less overall?
Patient pays doctor?
Or patient pays insurance company, doctor pays business staff, business staff negotiates with insurance company so doctor can get paid. Doctor has to charge enough to cover his business staff salary. Insurance company has to charge enough to cover their massive bureaucracy.
The middle man never lowers cost.
Ifit is so simple why do most, if not all, 1st world countries use other systems? Because they are all stupid? Maybe the current systems are just more effective, economy-wise.
Here are at leat two reasons why (I am sure people who have a more profound knowledge of healthcare system than I do will come up with some more):
- doctors do not have to chase after their money, they get paid by the "middle man"; i.e. more time spent on treating patients, less fear of not getting paid - insurance allows you to obtain healthcare that is more expensive than what you could usually afford
Well they are being taken advantage of, but at the same time, they are not paying half the world's military budget, so they can afford it. The USA cannot afford anymore.
You don't think doctor's have to take chase their money? This is just flat out ignorant. You obviously have zero experience with handling medical insurance claims. Doctors give free visits all the freaking time, because they cannot collect from insurance companies.
Dear Monkey,
how about you start one of your posts without accusing the people you quote of ignorance, for a start. Contrary to what you may believe, it does not strenghten your point of view but makes you look like an angry kid who is not open to debate.
In Germany, doctors do not have to chase after their money. If they are emplyoed in a hospital, they earn a fixed salary, if they have a practice of their own, they get paid for everything they do by the association of the insurance companies according to a set price list. No trouble, at all. If doctors in the US need to chase after their money despite having insurance companies maybe that is a problem than needs to be worked on.
So, given that our system works exactly the way I described it, and further taking into account that I was referring to this system or similar ones in my post, would you care to elaborate why this was ignorant?
My point of view needs no strengthening, but alas, the propaganda machine is far more than I could ever compete with. So I say fuck it, and say what I want to say. I have been given an alternate viewpoint that steps outside the daily propaganda, and it is something 99% of americans will never be able or even want to understand. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes people become delusional when they hear it.
This is what psychologists call a classical projection. Is there the possibility that you merely subsrcibe to another sort of propaganda? Just saying because your arguments are in no way new or extraordinary to me but merely based on a fundamentally different ideology. With regards to understanding them, there is a fundamental difference between acknowledging the internal consistency of your arguments (i.e. understanding them logically) and understanding why you hold those views (lets call that a moral or socio-emotionjal level).
I don't know anything about how it works in germany, but I am quite experienced here in the USA, and doctors have to chase their money, and each and every claim is also a risk.
Well, sorry to hear that people in the US enjoy not paying their bills at the cost of doctors and ultimately the patients. On the other hand, that does not limit the validity of my point in any way.
Yeah, anything is possible, and of course they are not new to you. Why would they be? I hold my "views" because they are true, anyone who does not, does not understand, and does not see.
Oh and it's not individuals not paying their bills that creates the big risk for doctors, the risk comes from insurance companies looking for technicalities to not pay for claims. Dealing with insurance claims is basically a game. Individual payments are a tiny fraction of how a doctor gets paid.
On January 25 2011 17:27 Jswizzy wrote: Well Insurance companies pay allot of money to insure that health care remains privatized.
That's because they'll be making 100x more money if it's privatized. They can, will, and still do deny healthcare to people, even if they are insured. "Sorry, your healthcare plan doesn't cover that". I had to go in for a surgery, I know. Now I'm paying it out of my own pockets.
On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote: Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable.
The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again.
Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them.
WRU critical thinking?
Before I simply say you are wrong (which you mostly are), I'd like some clarification. What sort of "spying" are we talking about? And what do you mean by "be a terrorist"? Is there some process involved?
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: Why is it so common for people to try to devaluate others' contributions in such a way? Disproving an argument by stating tzat is is "dumb" just does not work. You opinion what is "simplisitic" or "childish" does not matter, espeically not if you are to judge the validity of an argument. This is really annoying because it makes me feel that the debate is not about exchanging ideas or theorizing about solutions but rather about "winning" or proving that one's E-penis is longer.
I would like ot hear rational arguments why this is a bad idea or why these assumptions are wrong.
LOL! Really? The guy spent most of 2 paragraphs demonizing what is close to my point of view in the most base, simplistic, and childish terms, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding over what the actual debate is. Why am I not allowed to point that out?
On January 26 2011 06:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: On topic: was not the idea behind the healthcare reform to provide better covergae for more people while at the same time reducing the costs? Basically the original idea was to provide a public option that would force private insurers to forego a part of their profits to remain competitive. According to this view any profit made by an insurance company is either to be considered money that should be - instead - spent on healthcare or it reflects too high insurance rates.
Most of the actual ideas and goals behind the health care reform aren't even clear because it was drafted behind closed doors with minimal debate. Even so, the intentions aren't really relevant at this point. The real issue is how is health care reform affecting us now.
Closed doors.
As if the final bill wasn't posted before voting and you can't understand the reasoning behind why things are in the bill.
Oh wait.
Actually, now that I think of it, you're probable unable to comprehend it given your inability to read what I posted earlier without rambling about something irrelevant.
No, actually I noticed that you completely ducked the rather difficult and highly relevant issue of whether the individual mandate is constitutional stating, amusingly, "I don't care."
For the record, I seem to recall the final bill being drafted exclusively by Democrats behind closed doors, which was then posted, in its 2000+ pages of glory, approximately 2-3 days before it was voted upon. I may be off a little bit on the numbers, but it's close enough to get the point across. I actually have read the bill, and I assure you that it's not possible to understand it enough to vote on it with only a few days notice. In fact, that was the running joke at the time it was voted on....
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
On January 25 2011 17:27 Jswizzy wrote: Well Insurance companies pay allot of money to insure that health care remains privatized.
That's because they'll be making 100x more money if it's privatized. They can, will, and still do deny healthcare to people, even if they are insured. "Sorry, your healthcare plan doesn't cover that". I had to go in for a surgery, I know. Now I'm paying it out of my own pockets.
Oh please, they will make tons of money either way, and the current system is not at all "privatized". It will be the insurance companies themselves running "obamas" plan.
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Why not just send everyone $500,000, and then everyone can afford their own healthcare!
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote: Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
Hm, but that problem is easily solved if you require the public option to operate on its own. The only difference, then, would be that the public option must not generate profit that is their cost-advantage stops at the point where they run a deficit.
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
Strawman? We are talking about conjured money.
It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government.
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
Strawman? We are talking about conjured money.
It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government.
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
Strawman? We are talking about conjured money.
It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government.
On January 26 2011 05:49 silynxer wrote: So what about "number of broken bones" as an indicator (I'm going to bet that it is pretty much the same in the US as in most parts of Europe, perhaps I'll try to find statistics on this later)? Should this be explained through "riskier culture" so that the American culture would be moral hazardous in itself?
But then again before I digress further, I think you would be hard pressed to show that free healthcare leads to riskier behaviour.
To expand on my edit: The true cost of pretty much everything healthcare related remains hidden from the people even if they pay the full price (my examples were vaccination and regular check ups).
[EDIT]: Really interesting and the timing is so good: TED talk
There is little value to compare relative amounts of moral hazard in the two systems.
Moral hazard is apparent as excessive cost overruns in funding the health care system or excessive red tape in getting approval or payment for health care delivered. Both of these signs are apparent in the US system. In EU system, you might find long lines, low quality of service, bureaucratic approval, subsidized education, and budget-busting costs. Many nations are moving towards a public-private tier system to control costs.
When moral hazard imposes overwhelming costs on insurance as it does now in US health care, it is a sign of a broken insurance model. It's better that insurance gets abandoned as the delivery mechanism for health care than it is to somehow prop it back up with "individual mandates" and further regulation.
On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote: Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable.
The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again.
Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them.
WRU critical thinking?
Before I simply say you are wrong (which you mostly are), I'd like some clarification. What sort of "spying" are we talking about? And what do you mean by "be a terrorist"? Is there some process involved?
You think you know who the government spies on?
I'm asking what the Patriot Act authorizes. What sort of "spying" does the Patriot Act authorize, and on whom? And how is it unconstitutional?
I love how after nearly a dozen posts between us, you still haven't mentioned anything specific about the Patriot Act or made any specific arguments about how they are "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Probably because you know between jack and shit about what the Patriot Act actually authorizes and the meaning of "unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment.
If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone.
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote: If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encourage housing for everyone.
On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote: Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable.
The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again.
Yeah, you have to be a "terrorist" first. Only you don't get a trial either, so there is absolutely no way to demonstrate you aren't. Which means they can label anyone they want, and spy on them.
WRU critical thinking?
Before I simply say you are wrong (which you mostly are), I'd like some clarification. What sort of "spying" are we talking about? And what do you mean by "be a terrorist"? Is there some process involved?
You think you know who the government spies on?
I'm asking what the Patriot Act authorizes. What sort of "spying" does the Patriot Act authorize, and on whom? And how is it unconstitutional?
I love how after nearly a dozen posts between us, you still haven't mentioned anything specific about the Patriot Act or made any specific arguments about how they are "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Probably because you know between jack and shit about what the Patriot Act actually authorizes and the meaning of "unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment.
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
On January 26 2011 06:54 Tralan wrote: I know that the there is a CBO report which is a bipartisan group which says the health-care reform will reduce the defecit by a hundred billion I think so this would seem to show it is more affordable than the previous medicaid scheme. I have never heard of the term 'health rationing'; is that like you can only use insurance for certain conditions?
I find the CBO report laughable. The taxes that go into fund the health care reform go into effect before the health care reform starts spending money. The fiscally responsible portion is the taxes not the health care reform.
It's like promoting a plan that increases taxes by 8 billion a year immediately and then starts giving away 10 billion dollars a year four years from now, and claiming the 10 billion a year giveaway is fiscally responsible.
Yes, in the next 10 year period, it does produce a fiscal surplus of 20 billion. But it's the 8 billion a year tax increase that is doing the work, and there is a 2 billion shortfall each and every year that the plan is in effect.
On January 26 2011 06:50 DoubleReed wrote: The argument is that private companies would be unable to compete with public healthcare so it would essentially be socialized healthcare. But public option didn't go through, the conservative democrats did not like it.
Personally, I think healthcare companies can figure out legitimate, legal, and fair ways to make tons of money...
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
Strawman? We are talking about conjured money.
It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government.
lol please? where did you learn this? seriously
learn what?
That the gorvernment caused the current recession.
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote: If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the government after the bubble collapsed unless I am totally wrong so this point isnt valid. The government was culpable by not regulating the industry but it wasnt the cause of it.
On January 26 2011 07:06 Electric.Jesus wrote: [quote]
But that is something I do not understand. I freqwuently heard that everything the government does is automatically overbureaucratic and synonymous for incompetence. How could a private sector possibly fail against a less effective, less efficient and generally less competent competitor?
But I agree that it matters no more since it is off the table.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
Strawman? We are talking about conjured money.
It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government.
lol please? where did you learn this? seriously
learn what?
That the gorvernment caused the current recession.
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote: If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the government after the bubble collapsed unless I am totally wrong so this point isnt valid. The government was culpable by not regulating the industry but it wasnt the cause of it.
Where did fannie and freddie borrow their money from?
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote: If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encourage housing for everyone.
No they weren't. Consensus, even by Mises.org aside from some poor stupid folks, is that the CRA was an ineffective program. Evidence being, banks who took CRA money made nearly the same amount of subprime loans as banks acting purely on their own. In fact, Republicans used this as an excuse to end CRA, claiming it was just a giveaway to banks that were going to make the loans anyway.
Funnily enough they have now completely reversed their claims from it being completely ineffective to having created the Great Recession XD.
In fact, during the height of the boom Fannie & Freddie's market share dropped heavily, only to pick up when all the mortgages were dumped on them. Private companies were more than willing to take more risk than F&F:
This governmental talk also fails on a basic empirical point; the housing bubble happened from South Korea to Ireland to the United States. How could a US government law cause a housing bubble in Ireland?
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote: It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote: If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the government after the bubble collapsed unless I am totally wrong so this point isnt valid. The government was culpable by not regulating the industry but it wasnt the cause of it.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been managed by the federal government for decades. The problem was that the federal government -- through its own policies and regulations -- pressured lenders to make bad loans so that everyone who wanted a house could own a house, even if they couldn't afford it. Private lenders, stuck with obviously bad debt, bundled it together and sold it off to clear their books and try to create some value where there was none. We know the rest of the story....
Basically, the government bailed out its own failed program.
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote: It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote: It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
ex post facto warrants
Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again.
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot.
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from.
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt?
Strawman? We are talking about conjured money.
It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government.
lol please? where did you learn this? seriously
learn what?
That the gorvernment caused the current recession.
Books.
when you make such rediculous statements please post a source
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote: If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the government after the bubble collapsed unless I am totally wrong so this point isnt valid. The government was culpable by not regulating the industry but it wasnt the cause of it.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been managed by the federal government for decades. The problem was that the federal government -- through its own policies and regulations -- pressured lenders to make bad loans so that everyone who wanted a house could own a house, even if they couldn't afford it. Private lenders, stuck with obviously bad debt, bundled it together and sold it off to clear their books and try to create some value where there was none. We know the rest of the story....
Basically, the government bailed out its own failed program.
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote: It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
ex post facto warrants
Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again.
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote: It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
ex post facto warrants
Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again.
What is this, a quiz?
If you're going to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, one would think this would at least require: (1) knowing what the Patriot Act authorizes, and (2) knowing what the Constitution authorizes.
I'm going to assume from that last statement that you don't actually know either of those. In other words, your statement is bullshit and you are an ignoramus for making it. Thanks for participating in this discussion, it's not often I get other people to admit to their idiocy.
The only reason republicans are so against this bill is that the insurance companies are putting money in republican pockets. Then they get on the news and spread lies to make the people believe that this bill is hurting them. If you are one of those glad to see this repealed I really hope that you own an insurance company or are a major stakeholder in one, otherwise your likely very misinformed and just repeating someone-else's lies.
Patriot I had all of the nasty stuff. Sneaks and peeks. Roving wiretaps. Blanket wiretaps. Librarians clause. NSLs were a bigger problem. Most of these provisions sunset or were modified for Patriot II.
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote: It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
ex post facto warrants
Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again.
What is this, a quiz?
If you're going to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, one would think this would at least require: (1) knowing what the Patriot Act authorizes, and (2) knowing what the Constitution authorizes.
I'm going to assume from that last statement that you don't actually know either of those. In other words, your statement is bullshit and you are an ignoramus for making it.
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote: It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
ex post facto warrants
Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again.
What is this, a quiz?
If you're going to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, one would think this would at least require: (1) knowing what the Patriot Act authorizes, and (2) knowing what the Constitution authorizes.
I'm going to assume from that last statement that you don't actually know either of those. In other words, your statement is bullshit and you are an ignoramus for making it.
I don't really care what you assume.
Yes, it's pretty clear given that you can't even answer the fucking simple question of what the Patriot Act authorizes, that you are a buffoon who spouts ignorant shit. I mean, I've asked you half a dozen of times what the Patriot Act authorizes, and you either give me wrong answers, or evade the question with bullshit like "Is this a quiz?" What, exactly, should one assume except that you don't know anything about this topic?
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote: It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
ex post facto warrants
Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again.
What is this, a quiz?
If you're going to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, one would think this would at least require: (1) knowing what the Patriot Act authorizes, and (2) knowing what the Constitution authorizes.
I'm going to assume from that last statement that you don't actually know either of those. In other words, your statement is bullshit and you are an ignoramus for making it.
I don't really care what you assume.
Yes, it's pretty clear given that you can't even answer the fucking simple question of what the Patriot Act authorizes, that you are a buffoon who spouts ignorant shit. I mean, I've asked you half a dozen of times what the Patriot Act authorizes, and you either give me wrong answers, or evade the question with bullshit like "Is this a quiz?" What, exactly, should one assume except that you don't know anything about this topic?
I already answered and you were like lol try again, so I asked if I was being quized.
I find it saddening that every time I think the republicans will get up from the gutter and start acting like men and women, they fall even lower. This repeal is purelely showboating with the only goal being to re-gain the oval office. There is no motivation what-so-ever to actually improve the lives of Americans. Here in Denmark, while our opposition is kind of scary to think of as a potential government (inconsistent promises and a weak leader), at least they can keep the political debate political.
I don't really care what you guys over there get done about the health care, it just saddens me that politics is just pure mud-throwing today.
On January 26 2011 07:58 Nysze wrote: The only reason republicans are so against this bill is that the insurance companies are putting money in republican pockets. Then they get on the news and spread lies to make the people believe that this bill is hurting them. If you are one of those glad to see this repealed I really hope that you own an insurance company or are a major stakeholder in one, otherwise your likely very misinformed and just repeating someone-else's lies.
I don't know what the insurance companies could have asked for besides the individual mandate. That alone to capture all of the healthy low-risk individuals is enough to make the bill worthwhile for them. After that they can push all of the unhealthy individuals towards publicly subsidized plans and make the US taxpayer eat the really expensive claimants and the pre-existing conditions.
The losers were doctors and people under Medicare coverage and everyone forced into buying health insurance.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
"THE TIME FOR BICKERING IS OVER. THE GAME FOR GAMES HAS PASSED. NOW IS THE SEASON FOR ACTION, NOW IS WHEN WE MUST BRING THE BEST IDEAS" Haha, I have Phil Davison in my head for some reason :-)
On January 26 2011 07:58 TanGeng wrote: Sneaks and peeks.
Probably not unconstitutional, it only affects notice of the warrant, and in practice, rarely makes a difference.
Roving wiretaps. Blanket wiretaps.
Authorized in 1986.
Librarians clause. NSLs were a bigger problem.
Not unconstitutional after U.S. v. Miller (1976). And I'm not sure if it qualifies as "spying" on the person, when it's a subpoena for information about the person held by third parties. But I agree it was good policy to scale them back.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
You realize that public healthcare is both affordable and far more effective than privatized healthcare, right?
The government has a duty to serve its citizens. Under a governmental healthcare plan, you can't be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. You won't find a case such as those often glorified in movies where lawyers are hired to fight for patients because their insurance companies bailed out on them when they needed a critical medical procedure.
Also, the CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will reduce the federal budget deficit by roughly $200 billion.
Lastly, as others have said, most European countries have had public healthcare for decades now. The U.S. in this regard, along with many other areas of policy and in mindset, is years behind. It's no wonder the world thinks so negatively of us.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Patriot act, nuff said. What the practice of dealing out shitty policy in a shady way is only deplorable when it's not your side doing the nasty? Both deal the same thing, least this policy is to help people get treated medically while your republican fear campaign spawned the illegitimate devilchild that is the patriot act.
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Patriot act, nuff said. What the practice of dealing out shitty policy in a shady way is only deplorable when it's not your side doing the nasty? Both deal the same thing, least this policy is to help people get treated medically while your republican fear campaign spawned the illegitimate devilchild that is the patriot act.
Senator Joe Biden wrote the Patriot Act in 1995. Are you trying to tell us that Joe Biden was a republican?
"Actually, in 1995 Biden wrote the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. It included all the aspects on the USA Patriot Act, so much so, that when the bill was passed up, it led Biden to quip that it was in fact his bill."
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Patriot act, nuff said. What the practice of dealing out shitty policy in a shady way is only deplorable when it's not your side doing the nasty? Both deal the same thing, least this policy is to help people get treated medically while your republican fear campaign spawned the illegitimate devilchild that is the patriot act.
Senator Joe Biden wrote the Patriot Act in 1995. Are you trying to tell us that Joe Biden was a republican?
"Wrote" is such a strong word, a secretary "writes" things but is she to be held responsible for what she/he writes?
Look all I'm saying is that Bush was president, an unpopular bill (the patriot act) was passed under the guise of fear and necessity, how can one side say the other side is underhanded when both are shady dealers worthy of an alley?
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
Well thats not how the system works in my country atleast. The government doesnt cap the amount of money available to providers for treating patients. The system covers itself. There is no reduction in the availability and quality of treatment.
On January 26 2011 08:29 wherebugsgo wrote: You realize that public healthcare is both affordable and far more effective than privatized healthcare, right?
The government has a duty to serve its citizens. Under a governmental healthcare plan, you can't be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. You won't find a case such as those often glorified in movies where lawyers are hired to fight for patients because their insurance companies bailed out on them when they needed a critical medical procedure.
Also, the CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will reduce the federal budget deficit by roughly $200 billion.
Lastly, as others have said, most European countries have had public healthcare for decades now. The U.S. in this regard, along with many other areas of policy and in mindset, is years behind. It's no wonder the world thinks so negatively of us.
Let me see if I can help you out here.
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Second, that CBO budget is the biggest joke of all. No one who knows anything takes it seriously because it's projections are so speculative. Making an accurate 10-year budget projection about a bill that's hardly even been fleshed out by the necessary regulations is impossible. This one thing that everyone forgets about Obamacare: most of what it ultimately will become hasn't even been written yet because that will be left to the administrative process.
Third, you are dangerously naive if you think that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens. The people who founded this country certainly had no delusions on this point, and no intelligent person would ever assume that the federal government is always looking out for the little guy.
Lastly, not having public insurance is not good enough of a reason to rush through a shitty healthcare bill. Let's take time to get it right. More importantly, if you're really that embarassed about how the US is seen in world's eyes (not that you should give a shit anyway), then move.
This is blatantly false and unbased.
Really? Again, go read about Canda's health care system. If you can't accept that rationing is real, then you don't even belong in this debate.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
Well thats not how the system works in my country atleast. The government doesnt cap the amount of money available to providers for treating patients. The system covers itself. There is no reduction in the availability and quality of treatment.
Let me ask you this: who decides what treatment is available to which patients? I'm guessing that there is some government agency that has created regulations that dictate exactly what treatment is available, who gets it, and when. Is any drug that has ever been created available to everyone in your country under your public insurance or are you limited to certain generics?
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Then again, you have 20% of your population not insured AT ALL! Look it is true that public health care gets watered down to cut costs which brings its own problems, but you are missing a crucial point in this debate. The public health care system is there as a safety net. People who did not hit the social and economical lottery are still cared for in a system as this, which to me is good from a purely ethical point of view. That is not my main point here, the main point is that the systems are not mutually exclusive, the people who can afford it can still take private health care insurance, What is happening when you have only the private system in place is widespread uninsurance and potentially lower costs. I would choose the ethical option and go for the system that takes care of those in need.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
Well thats not how the system works in my country atleast. The government doesnt cap the amount of money available to providers for treating patients. The system covers itself. There is no reduction in the availability and quality of treatment.
Let me ask you this: who decides what treatment is available to which patients? I'm guessing that there is some government agency that has created regulations that dictate exactly what treatment is available, who gets it, and when. Is any drug that has ever been created available to everyone in your country under your public insurance or are you limited to certain generics?
basically, insurance is divided into two parts: the mandatory and optional part, every insurance company is forced by law to provide standard insurance package that covers the basic care for everyone at a low price. (can get government aid for this i think as well but i would have to look it up.) Then you can pay extra for premium, non-essential care such as retainers for children etc.
Is any drug that has ever been created available to everyone in your country under your public insurance or are you limited to certain generics?
think there is a current trend to go for the more generic medicine (same active substance obv) versus "brand names", especially in cases that do not have patent anymore like paracetamol. Other then that i think i know where you are trying to go with this, but doctor ordered medicine is the thing that gets funded.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
Well thats not how the system works in my country atleast. The government doesnt cap the amount of money available to providers for treating patients. The system covers itself. There is no reduction in the availability and quality of treatment.
Let me ask you this: who decides what treatment is available to which patients? I'm guessing that there is some government agency that has created regulations that dictate exactly what treatment is available, who gets it, and when. Is any drug that has ever been created available to everyone in your country under your public insurance or are you limited to certain generics?
Pretty much all treatment is available, except for some problems where treatment is still in the experimental stages usually things which like only 1 in 10 million people have. Those people usually get on tv and get funded by donations (if they need it) to get treatment (usually) in the US where they have this experimental treatment and hope it works.
Pretty much everyone gets all treatment they need when they need it, except people who require an organ donor simply because there are not enough organs available. There is a waiting list for organs, the longer you wait, the higher you get on the list, the higher the urgancy, the higher you get on this list. So its not regulated by who offers the most money, which is totally fair imo. Doctors decide who gets an organ when its available (highest on list, urgancy, least chance of rejection etc).
I think pretty much all drugs are available(except maybe antidote to some rare snake poisoning which dont live in my country anyway), but not all drugs are covered by insurance, but i dont know the exact details.
edit: I'm sure our system is not perfect and could still improve, but its a lot better than the current system in the US.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
I love this lie you keep spreading that if you have insurance you obviously have good insurance. Maybe YOU have good insurance, that doesn't mean you can speak for "most people". Stop spreading lies, especially to people who don't live here.
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Then again, you have 20% of your population not insured AT ALL! Look it is true that public health care gets watered down to cut costs which brings its own problems, but you are missing a crucial point in this debate. The public health care system is there as a safety net. People who did not hit the social and economical lottery are still cared for in a system as this, which to me is good from a purely ethical point of view. That is not my main point here, the main point is that the systems are not mutually exclusive, the people who can afford it can still take private health care insurance, What is happening when you have only the private system in place is widespread uninsurance and potentially lower costs. I would choose the ethical option and go for the system that takes care of those in need.
20% of the population not being insured is an example of how expensive the insurance model and its moral hazards are. It does not follow that we should force 20% of the population who find it an unacceptable price to pay to buy that insurance. These 20% of the population have to be more careful on their health care and they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should.
Lack of insurance is lack of access to the primary delivery model for health care. It is not a complete lack of access to health care. They can go see doctors and pay in cash for regular checkups. Some doctors prefer that since they don't have to deal with insurance agencies. Emergency care and many specialists, however, are all but out of the question for economical prices. If you want to be ethical, you could also improve the access of the uninsured to health care.
On January 26 2011 08:29 wherebugsgo wrote: You realize that public healthcare is both affordable and far more effective than privatized healthcare, right?
The government has a duty to serve its citizens. Under a governmental healthcare plan, you can't be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. You won't find a case such as those often glorified in movies where lawyers are hired to fight for patients because their insurance companies bailed out on them when they needed a critical medical procedure.
Also, the CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will reduce the federal budget deficit by roughly $200 billion.
Lastly, as others have said, most European countries have had public healthcare for decades now. The U.S. in this regard, along with many other areas of policy and in mindset, is years behind. It's no wonder the world thinks so negatively of us.
Let me see if I can help you out here.
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Second, that CBO budget is the biggest joke of all. No one who knows anything takes it seriously because it's projections are so speculative. Making an accurate 10-year budget projection about a bill that's hardly even been fleshed out by the necessary regulations is impossible. This one thing that everyone forgets about Obamacare: most of what it ultimately will become hasn't even been written yet because that will be left to the administrative process.
Third, you are dangerously naive if you think that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens. The people who founded this country certainly had no delusions on this point, and no intelligent person would ever assume that the federal government is always looking out for the little guy.
Lastly, not having public insurance is not good enough of a reason to rush through a shitty healthcare bill. Let's take time to get it right. More importantly, if you're really that embarassed about how the US is seen in world's eyes (not that you should give a shit anyway), then move.
Lastly, I am not naive in believing that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens, because I don't believe that and I never said I did. I said that a government has a duty to serve its citizens. Private companies have no duties, they simply exist to churn out money.
Public healthcare legislation is written so that patients cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions and other things which private companies often use as excuses to avoid paying medical fees and compensation. Private companies don't have such regulations, and it is, quite frankly, impossible and highly ineffective to try and police private insurance companies into serving people fairly when their sole goal is to make money. It's no secret that insurance companies like to enroll healthy people and dig up any excuse possible to avoid paying claims. This has been documented numerous times, people have died because of it, and there have been dozens of lawsuits on the matter.
When the government is responsible for health insurance, this kind of fraud happens far less because the standards are universal. There are no business loopholes because the government is not in search of profit.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that Canada is the ONLY industrialized country where wait times are, on average, longer than for the U.S. However, Canada's system is rapidly improving, and the healthcare is guaranteed anyway. The wait is just longer than in the U.S. (but not by much, and it's rapidly changing.) The system here in the U.S. doesn't seem to be improving at all. It's also important to mention that there is no wait time in Canada for emergency surgeries (unlike here) and there aren't millions of uninsured people.
I lived in NZ. Healthcare there is excellent, both in availability and affordability. You might say, well, NZ is tiny, so it's clearly easier to implement an effective system there, and you'd be right. However, the UK, Germany, and Australia also boast better systems than the U.S.
In Germany, for example, wait times are much shorter for everything (even specialized treatment) than here in the U.S., and yet they have a national healthcare system.
On January 26 2011 09:50 wherebugsgo wrote: Lastly, I am not naive in believing that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens, because I don't believe that and I never said I did. I said that a government has a duty to serve its citizens. Private companies have no duties, they simply exist to churn out money.
If you've ever been in part of a big big company you would know that you have to at least satisfy your good customers. You'll try to weed out the bad and unruly customers. The good customers have to be satisfied to come back. That means insurance agencies can't appear openly unfair to some unlucky soul that happened to get sick under their coverage. These insurance agencies will try if nobody is watching, but people are.
Most of the red tape, the hassle, the clinical paperwork, and the coding practices are to combat the moral hazard of having too high of a co-insurance rate. People with insurance consume a lot of health care because they don't see the full cost.
Finally, good customers who either think the quality of insurance coverage is too poor, the hassle of insurance is too much, or the cost of insurance is too high go uninsured. That is the expression of how bad the economics of insurance has become.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Then again, you have 20% of your population not insured AT ALL! Look it is true that public health care gets watered down to cut costs which brings its own problems, but you are missing a crucial point in this debate. The public health care system is there as a safety net. People who did not hit the social and economical lottery are still cared for in a system as this, which to me is good from a purely ethical point of view. That is not my main point here, the main point is that the systems are not mutually exclusive, the people who can afford it can still take private health care insurance, What is happening when you have only the private system in place is widespread uninsurance and potentially lower costs. I would choose the ethical option and go for the system that takes care of those in need.
20% of the population not being insured is an example of how expensive the insurance model and its moral hazards are. It does not follow that we should force 20% of the population who find it an unacceptable price to pay to buy that insurance. These 20% of the population have to be more careful on their health care and they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should.
Lack of insurance is lack of access to the primary delivery model for health care. It is not a complete lack of access to health care. They can go see doctors and pay in cash for regular checkups. Some doctors prefer that since they don't have to deal with insurance agencies. Emergency care and many specialists, however, are all but out of the question for economical prices. If you want to be ethical, you could also improve the access of the uninsured to health care.
seriously they find it an unacceptable price to pay? Excuse me but with an unemployment rate of around 10% it is not a choice but an impossibility. The way the health care system is set up causes people to not be able to get the health care they need. In my opinion one of the governments main tasks should be to provide this neccesary care for the people. So people are forced to buy something, so what? you can always opt out for specific reasons. And don't come up with affording it because the government helps / pays if you are unable to.
"Opting out
Specific minority groups in Dutch society, most notably certain branches of orthodox Calvinism and Evangelical Christian groups, refuse to have insurance for religious reasons. To take care for these religious principled objections, the Dutch system provides a special opt-out clause. The amount of money for health care that would be paid by an employer in payroll taxes is in those cases not used for redistribution by the government, but instead, after request to the tax authorities, credited to a private health care savings account. The individual can draw from this account for paying medical bills, however if the account is depleted, one has to find the money elsewhere. If the person dies and the account still contains a sum, that sum is included in the inheritance.
If a person with a private health savings account changes his or her mind and wants to get insurance, the tax authorities release the remaining sum in the health account into the common risk pool.
The set of rules around the opt-out clauses have been designed in such way that people who do not want to be insured can opt-out but not engage in a free ride on the system. However, ultimately health care providers are obliged to provide acute health care irrespective of insurance or financial status." Source: wiki
And the rest of that post is just random things that are not relevant in the slightest.
they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should.
No shit sir, they are walking on eggshells. Make a mistake and it could mean your bankrupcy.
They can go see doctors and pay in cash for regular checkups. Some doctors prefer that since they don't have to deal with insurance agencies.
Some doctors prefer cash because they do not have to deal with insurance agencies. well good for them i guess. They will adapt.
Emergency care and many specialists, however, are all but out of the question for economical prices.
So the care needed most is out of the question for these people. That sounds like a mighty fine plan.
On January 26 2011 09:50 wherebugsgo wrote: Lastly, I am not naive in believing that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens, because I don't believe that and I never said I did. I said that a government has a duty to serve its citizens. Private companies have no duties, they simply exist to churn out money.
If you've ever been in part of a big big company you would know that you have to at least satisfy your good customers. You'll try to weed out the bad and unruly customers. The good customers have to be satisfied to come back. That means insurance agencies can't appear openly unfair to some unlucky soul that happened to get sick under their coverage. These insurance agencies will try if nobody is watching, but people are.
Most of the red tape, the hassle, the clinical paperwork, and the coding practices are to combat the moral hazard of having too high of a co-insurance rate. People with insurance consume a lot of health care because they don't see the full cost.
Finally, good customers who either think the quality of insurance coverage is too poor, the hassle of insurance is too much, or the cost of insurance is too high go uninsured. That is the expression of how bad the economics of insurance has become.
I like how you chose to only reply to that part of my post.
First of all, you can believe that notion if you like, but the conclusions I made follow pretty logically. The statistics also speak for themselves.
Insurance companies frequently get sued in the U.S. because of how they often try to deny their patients coverage. Over the past decade, premiums have skyrocketed. Between 2001 and 2007 alone, for example, premiums went up 80%, vastly outpacing wage growth and inflation.
Lastly, the "good customers" for insurance companies are customers who never claim anything; they are the ones who never needed the insurance because they got lucky to never become sick or injured. What about this is hard to understand? Insurance companies DO reward their good customers, the demographics most likely to stay healthy, by giving them slight discounts. However, for everyone else, including those with preexisting conditions and those who have had a history of ailment, private insurance is complete trash.
Some people who support privatized insurance also claim that it's good for the economy, and that jobs will be lost if we add a public healthcare system, and we'll be wasting money that could be spent elsewhere. This is also unfounded and false. There's a phenomenon that happens here in the U.S. that really doesn't happen anywhere else, that reduces the flexibility of the job market because people are not willing to find different avenues of work for fear of losing their insurance. I believe this phenomenon is called "job-lock" (I could be wrong, or just remembering incorrectly) but it's a serious problem because of the strains it puts on the economy. Job turnover is stifled and people get pigeonholed in roles they aren't fit to serve because they're just too scared of becoming uninsured. In addition, companies must spend money on insurance plans (this is a big issue among the auto companies, especially) which makes competition with foreign businesses harder because of the increased burden.
And the rest of that post is just random things that are not relevant in the slightest.
they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should.
No shit sir, they are walking on eggshells. Make a mistake and it could mean your bankrupcy.
Anyone who thinks moral hazard is "not relevant in the slightest" does not deserve to comment on the topic.
my sarcastic tone is trying to convey the fact that was stated there is redundant, but i like your efforts. Anyway i am done here, i like these discussions but i just came in here to post something short and end up getting sucked into it. :-) Talk to me when you want to discuss dutch policy though, i am quite up for it.
I think this whole private/public distinction is quite meaningless. The U.S. is not a completely private system, with Medicare/Medicaid and all of the subsidies and restrictions surrounding health insurance. And none of the European or Asian systems are completely public, in fact, highly successful health care systems like the Netherlands' and Singapore's mostly use private insurance to finance their health care.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
And the rest of that post is just random things that are not relevant in the slightest.
they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should.
No shit sir, they are walking on eggshells. Make a mistake and it could mean your bankrupcy.
Anyone who thinks moral hazard is "not relevant in the slightest" does not deserve to comment on the topic.
There are both good and bad sides of moral hazard. The good side is that it increases the public health, which means more healthy tax payers and less ill people requiring social security. The downside is that it costs money. Our government is trying to make people aware of this by a provision called "own risk" (literally translated). It means that you have to pay the first €175(per year) yourself (in 2011, in 2012 its €210)(The family doctor and some other things do not apply to this provision). Also some unnecessary treatments dont get reimbursed unless you have additional insurance.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
The CBO is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring. Just because some of the media make it out to be some kind of omnipotent organization doesn't make them so. I suggest you fully read my post, I don't believe you did.
As for this surcharge, yes it is a lot of revenue. It also happens to be yet another tax increase on the top percentage of taxpayers. Why is this a good thing? The top percentage in this country pays all the taxes, while the bottom percentage pays almost no taxes and receives all the benefits. The wealthy already pay enough in this country without the destruction this bill is going to wreak on their income.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
Right. The CBO has been used to estimate budget projections since the 70s, and it seems NOW they have fault with it? It doesn't line up. It's as if, just because the ways to spend the money are easy to see but because the savings are more complicated, a lot of the Republicans are convinced that the bill doesn't save money.
Propaganda at its finest, of course.
The CBO is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring. Just because some of the media make it out to be some kind of omnipotent organization doesn't make them so. I suggest you fully read my post, I don't believe you did.
As for this surcharge, yes it is a lot of revenue. It also happens to be yet another tax increase on the top percentage of taxpayers. Why is this a good thing? The top percentage in this country pays all the taxes, while the bottom percentage pays almost no taxes and receives all the benefits. The wealthy already pay enough in this country without the destruction this bill is going to wreak on their income.
You went from lamenting that the CBO was manipulated to claiming that the CBO "is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring" and complaining about excessive taxes.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
Right. The CBO has been used to estimate budget projections since the 70s, and it seems NOW they have fault with it? It doesn't line up. It's as if, just because the ways to spend the money are easy to see but because the savings are more complicated, a lot of the Republicans are convinced that the bill doesn't save money.
The CBO is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring. Just because some of the media make it out to be some kind of omnipotent organization doesn't make them so. I suggest you fully read my post, I don't believe you did.
As for this surcharge, yes it is a lot of revenue. It also happens to be yet another tax increase on the top percentage of taxpayers. Why is this a good thing? The top percentage in this country pays all the taxes, while the bottom percentage pays almost no taxes and receives all the benefits. The wealthy already pay enough in this country without the destruction this bill is going to wreak on their income.
You went from lamenting that the CBO was manipulated to claiming that the CBO "is not the be-all end-all of bill scoring" and complaining about excessive taxes.
Make up your mind, or just admit you were wrong.
I'm not wrong. The CBO has to score what is in front of them. For instance, if you put a bill in front of them and ask them to score it, and then say to them "assume the economy booms in 2015" they have to score the bill with that in mind. In this case, they put the bill in front of them assuming they're going to make these cuts to Medicare and not pass the "Doc Fix". The CBO has to score the bill with that in mind.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
The "Doc fix" bill you speak of delayed the cuts to doctors. It was never intended for this pay cut to be used toward the healthcare bill. This is propaganda. It is not part of the budget projection. It is not part of the estimated costs or revenues that the CBO took into account when it released the figures. Get this through your head.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
What are you talking about? The bill changes medicare, it doesn't "fund itself" using medicare. For example, a $200 million cut in medicare spending is a $200 million cut to the deficit. You just seem to be going on about double counting because you erroneously suggest that the cost of the program is being "offset" by the $200 million cut. This isn't true: most of the offset comes from the increase in tax revenue, and the additional changes to the projected deficit come from the fact that medicare is being streamlined. How hard is this to understand?
Also, I like your use of incredulity and ridicule to further your "point." You claim that he can't "seriously claim" that it isn't double counting, and implicate that the fact that Medicare is inefficient, or as you put it, "bleeding money right now" somehow means it's double counting.
I'm not wrong. The CBO has to score what is in front of them. For instance, if you put a bill in front of them and ask them to score it, and then say to them "assume the economy booms in 2015" they have to score the bill with that in mind. In this case, they put the bill in front of them assuming they're going to make these cuts to Medicare and not pass the "Doc Fix". The CBO has to score the bill with that in mind.
Understand?
This is not what the CBO does. This is what Republican propaganda has insisted that the CBO does, even though it conveniently uses the CBO's estimates to back up its own plans when it conveniences the party's agenda. For example, when the CBO estimated that Obama's stimulus package would boost the economy in the short term but potentially hurt the economy in the long term, Republicans were in uproar. Yet now, they're quick to claim that the CBO is some kind of five year old that is trained to only add and subtract numbers.
It's no secret that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is extremely inefficient. This bill reduces some of these inefficiencies, which is why the budget deficit is actually reduced even though an entitlement program is introduced. It's not intuitive, but it is logical.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
The "Doc fix" bill you speak of delayed the cuts to doctors. It was never intended for this pay cut to be used toward the healthcare bill. This is propaganda. It is not part of the budget projection. It is not part of the estimated costs or revenues that the CBO took into account when it released the figures. Get this through your head.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
What are you talking about? The bill changes medicare, it doesn't "fund itself" using medicare. For example, a $200 million cut in medicare spending is a $200 million cut to the deficit. You just seem to be going on about double counting because you erroneously suggest that the cost of the program is being "offset" by the $200 million cut. This isn't true: most of the offset comes from the increase in tax revenue, and the additional changes to the projected deficit come from the fact that medicare is being streamlined. How hard is this to understand?
Also, I like your use of incredulity and ridicule to further your "point." You claim that he can't "seriously claim" that it isn't double counting, and implicate that the fact that Medicare is inefficient, or as you put it, "bleeding money right now" somehow means it's double counting.
I'm not wrong. The CBO has to score what is in front of them. For instance, if you put a bill in front of them and ask them to score it, and then say to them "assume the economy booms in 2015" they have to score the bill with that in mind. In this case, they put the bill in front of them assuming they're going to make these cuts to Medicare and not pass the "Doc Fix". The CBO has to score the bill with that in mind.
Understand?
This is not what the CBO does. This is what Republican propaganda has insisted that the CBO does, even though it conveniently uses the CBO's estimates to back up its own plans when it conveniences the party's agenda. For example, when the CBO estimated that Obama's stimulus package would boost the economy in the short term but potentially hurt the economy in the long term, Republicans were in uproar. Yet now, they're quick to claim that the CBO is some kind of five year old that is trained to only add and subtract numbers.
It's no secret that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is extremely inefficient. This bill reduces some of these inefficiencies, which is why the budget deficit is actually reduced even though an entitlement program is introduced. It's not intuitive, but it is logical.
You aren't reading my posts. If you want to have a debate, we can have a debate, but I'm not going to keep posting if you don't read my posts. I didn't claim that just because Medicare was bleeding money it was double counting. That is way oversimplifying my point. Medicare has a huge unfunded liability, the cuts in Medicare are supposedly being used to shore up Medicare's solvency and pay for future Medicare spending. Somehow, this money is also being used to pay for the health-care bill. Please explain how this is not double-counting.
Please don't call me a Republican propagandist, this does not further the debate. This is what CBO does. Please read the article I posted by Holtz-Eakin, he was a former CBO director. He is also an extremely smart man.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
You are massively conflating something a Democratic politician said (which was wrong, that is, it both makes medicare solvent and pays for reform) with what the CBO counted.
Paul Ryan admitted there was no double counting in the CBO's report:
"But what I want to make sure is clarified here is that the numbers people are using from CBO are not afflicted by that rhetorical overreach. When CBO says the bill will save this much money, it really will, at least according to the best estimates.
REP. RYAN: I'm not disagreeing with that. But I think CBO is omitting other fiscal effects that are not in the bill -- unless we plan on cutting doctors 21 percent next month. Unless we plan on doing that, then we're not truly capturing the fiscal effects. [Washington Post, 3/4/10, emphasis added]"
It was a campaign promise. As stupid as it may seem, at least they are following up on their campaign promises lol. I hate it when the people don't follow up even though they promise. They do it only for votes. And even if this is stupid politics, at least they have the balls to follow up on it.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
On January 25 2011 18:03 RJGooner wrote: You guys need to understand that this was a campaign promise. They told the people who voted for them that they would try to repeal it and they are. You may call it useless OP, but they have to start somewhere in repealing this awful bill. As for wasting taxpayers money, #1 they are doing work that people voted them in to do, and #2 what about the hundreds of billions this bill will add to the deficit? Maybe they should focus more on job creation right now, but honestly I support any attempt to repeal this legislation.
Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill.
Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here.
Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid...
Checks and balances at work. It was pretty active in half the clinton years too. I haven't heard it thanks for the post, this is the only place I get my news :/. Has anyone read the proposal? I would cry/laugh if it included more spending in a repeal.
On January 25 2011 18:36 Macavenger wrote: [quote] Non-partisan analysis of the current law (Congressional Budget Office, I think?) indicates it reduces the deficit over the next 15 or something years. It may increase it slightly in the short term, but is a large net plus long term.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill.
Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here.
Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid...
Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut.
This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill.
Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here.
Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid...
Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut.
This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine.
Yes, exactly. So why are you claiming the Doc FIx is part of this bill? It is an irrelevant point, the Doc Fix will happen with or without the bill and thus cannot be considered an expense of the bill.
It is a matter of you being wrong, not a different viewpoint.
You probably got this from Paul Ryan, who, as I posted, admitted the CBO didn't double-count and he is using rhetorical tricks regarding double counting and a non-sequitur when it comes to the Doc Fix.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. First off, the CBO has to score what is in front of them. What does this mean? Well, if someone puts a bill on the CBO's desk, the CBO has to score WHAT IS IN THE BILL and not other factors that have a lot to do with this bill.
The key here is that the way the Democrats say that this "reduces" the deficit is twofold. Number one, they have 10 years of taxes for the first six years of spending. Secondly, there is a TON of double-counting in this bill. Here's some quick examples:
398 billion in Medicare "cuts" that are being counted as solving up Medicare's solvency but instead are being counted toward this bill.
70 Billion dollars in Social Security premiums being double counted.
The "doc fix": another 210 billion dollars that is not going to be there because Congress always passes the doc fix.
See the problem is, the CBO only looks at what you put in front of them. If you go to CBO and say "assume that the funding includes the Medicare, Social Security, and doc fix money" they HAVE to score the bill assuming those factors. CBO, in this case, was manipulated.
This is why I hate it when people say the bill is going to lower the deficit. The CBO was manipulated. It also goes against all common sense. We're going to add a new entitlement and somehow lower the deficit? We're going to give insurance to millions of new people (not to mention the ones that are going to be dumped onto this government plan by their employers) and somehow reduce the deficit? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. We need to repeal this legislation and start over.
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill.
Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here.
Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid...
Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut.
This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine.
EXACTLY.
You said it yourself. This has been happening for a long time. It is NOT double counting BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL.
At this point you've resorted to pitying yourself and claiming we're not reading your posts. We are, you're just being completely illogical. The Doc fix bill is separate from the healthcare bill and therefore is not part of the healthcare reform budget calculations.
Since this has been happening since 1997, the net result is that the Doc fix legislation has no foreseeable change to the budget. The Republicans wanted to axe it because they wanted to cut medicare spending by $200 billion. For the 13th year in a row, they failed, so now they've turned it into part of the healthcare bill with their propaganda arm, when it has been a separate issue for more than a decade.
On January 26 2011 10:13 gerundium wrote: seriously they find it an unacceptable price to pay? Excuse me but with an unemployment rate of around 10% it is not a choice but an impossibility. The way the health care system is set up causes people to not be able to get the health care they need. In my opinion one of the governments main tasks should be to provide this neccesary care for the people. So people are forced to buy something, so what? you can always opt out for specific reasons. And don't come up with affording it because the government helps / pays if you are unable to.
Given a choice to live in a place with enough privacy or put food on the table OR buy health insurance, these people choose privacy and food. Health insurance is not a priority because it's damn expensive. Yes it's a hard choice to make, but that's the priority of these people. It SUCKS being forced to buy something that is ridiculously expensive when your priorities are somewhere else.
This is the individual mandate. Forcing 50 million people to buy insurance at a conservative cost of $3000 per individual per year is $150 billion dollars per year. That's a huge amount of money to shove into the health insurance industry. It dwarfs any kind of fiscal "savings" of the new bill.
Emergency care and many specialists, however, are all but out of the question for economical prices.
So the care needed most is out of the question for these people. That sounds like a mighty fine plan.
That's their current predicament precisely because THE GOVERNMENT makes it so damn hard to get by without insurance. All of the tax incentives and regulations make it IMPOSSIBLE to get that service without insurance company connections. It's is an artificial construct thanks to regulations. It takes balls to tell these people that are struggling to get by and doctors that are sick and tired of coding practices and insurance company bureaucracy that you are going to fuck their life by giving them no choice in buying insurance and accepting insurance. Because fuck these little people, right?
BTW, the carefulness is precisely an expression of total lack of moral hazard in the uninsured arena. The reason they value their health so much is because they know if they mess up, they would be screwed. If only the rest of the population were so careful and frugal because total health care expenditures would plummet.
The United States has the most deregulated health care system among first world nations. Every other first world nation has a health care system around 40% more efficient than that of the United States for cost.
...So your solution is to continue US health care deregulation.
I'd suggest reading Akerlof's Market for Lemons. It's not a difficult read, he won a Nobel Prize for it, and it's fairly informative as to why health care is so terrible in the United States.
The US health care system is a heavily regulated market with private actors operating on profit motive. There is thousands and thousands of pages of regulation at the state and federal level. Such a system pretty much borrows the worst of public and private systems. It has the inefficiency and moral hazard of public systems. It has the profiteering and pressure advertising of private systems. The individual mandate is yet another step towards an unholy public-private disaster - a disaster that is already playing out in Massachusetts. There will be little savings in premiums. The cost of funding the insurance subsidies will wildly exceed initial estimates. People will hate the system in a few years.
I've been on record here as advocating going fully private with little regulation or fully public with total socialism. I believe will regret getting stuck in this limbo of individual mandate. There is some parallels with Switzerland system but theirs is expensive, and in line with the $3000 per individual per year. The advantage of Swiss is that they only have 8 million in population. That will be much easier to administrate, manage moral hazard, and counter act fraud than in a system that oversees 300 million.
I've read Market For Lemons. It makes the fundamental assumption that consumers are dumb and that "some smart technocrat" has to coddle these dumb consumers. Consumers can't seem to learn that they need to do their due diligence when buying cars or recognize that quality is not uniform over all goods. That's going to be a self-fulfilling prophesy if you coddle them.
On January 26 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote: [quote]
I'll take a quote from a Washington Post article on this matter:
"To cover the cost of those changes, the compromise would impose a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for wealthy taxpayers, a levy that would come in addition to a Senate-proposed increase in the regular payroll tax for those families. And it would slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade."
Important parts are bolded.
A 3.8% tax increase on wealthy tax payers is a HUGE increase in revenue. The streamlining of Medicare would also result in pretty big savings, which is why the CBO made the estimates of reducing the budget, not because the CBO was "manipulated." The CBO can't be manipulated, and it isn't as retarded as you seem to be suggesting.
I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill.
Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here.
Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid...
Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut.
This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine.
EXACTLY.
You said it yourself. This has been happening for a long time. It is NOT double counting BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL.
At this point you've resorted to pitying yourself and claiming we're not reading your posts. We are, you're just being completely illogical. The Doc fix bill is separate from the healthcare bill and therefore is not part of the healthcare reform budget calculations.
Since this has been happening since 1997, the net result is that the Doc fix legislation has no foreseeable change to the budget. The Republicans wanted to axe it because they wanted to cut medicare spending by $200 billion. For the 13th year in a row, they failed, so now they've turned it into part of the healthcare bill with their propaganda arm, when it has been a separate issue for more than a decade.
Get your facts straight.
There is a doc fix in this bill that DOES cut payments to Medicare doctors, providers and physicians starting six years from now. The problem is that this will be repealed (like they do every year) and that "savings" will not be realized.
On January 26 2011 16:18 TanGeng wrote: I've read Market For Lemons. It makes the fundamental assumption that consumers are dumb and that "some smart technocrat" has to coddle these dumb consumers. Consumers can't seem to learn that they need to do their due diligence when buying cars or recognize that quality is not uniform over all goods. That's going to be a self-fulfilling prophesy if you coddle them.
ACA does have the sustainable growth rate (SGR) provision of the Balance Budge Act of 1997. SGR is the provision that keeps getting the "doc fix" every time it is about to come into affect. It is projected to be one huge saving for Medicare this decade and huge savings in future decades. ACA has the IPAB, a different cost controlling measuring. Not the "doc fix" issue. Same sort of logic applies. Now the savings is only on paper. To realize those savings, Congress would have to have the will power to see it through, will power that Congress has yet to demonstrate. Thus Medicare becomes more and more insolvent. That said if Congress does see it through, we might see the end of Medicare as we know it in a decade or so. No doctors will want to accept Medicare patients then and Congress will effectively kill that entitlement.
On January 26 2011 16:18 TanGeng wrote: I've read Market For Lemons. It makes the fundamental assumption that consumers are dumb and that "some smart technocrat" has to coddle these dumb consumers. Consumers can't seem to learn that they need to do their due diligence when buying cars or recognize that quality is not uniform over all goods. That's going to be a self-fulfilling prophesy if you coddle them.
I'm fairly certain you're trolling.
Look, it's all about asymmetrical information and how buyers can't POSSIBLY determine the quality which the seller knows. Buyers would be screaming for services to level the playing field. Recent innovation in quality tracking of cars for example would suggest that the playing field does get leveled.
The "lemon" market is contingent on several other factors like lack of reputation tracking, lack of enforceable warranty, and lack of quality control. These all don't exist any more for sizeable purchases like use cars. In fact part of the driving force behind closing the asymmetrical information has been sellers of high quality used cars. They want to be able to differentiate themselves from the lemon dealers.
The only other explanation is that all consumers are dumb and won't do their due diligence. Hence the coddling. In fact, this is part of the book. These buyers need regulators or they won't see the warning signs!
On January 26 2011 16:52 TanGeng wrote: Look, it's all about asymmetrical information and how buyers can't POSSIBLY determine the quality which the seller knows. Buyers would be screaming for services to level the playing field. Recent innovation in quality tracking of cars for example would suggest that the playing field does get leveled.
The "lemon" market is contingent on several other factors like lack of reputation tracking, lack of enforceable warranty, and lack of quality control. These all don't exist any more for sizeable purchases like use cars. In fact part of the driving force behind closing the asymmetrical information has been sellers of high quality used cars. They want to be able to differentiate themselves from the lemon dealers.
The only other explanation is that all consumers are dumb and won't do their due diligence. Hence the coddling. In fact, this is part of the book. These buyers need regulators or they won't see the warning signs!
That's why healthcare insurance costs so much over here*. As Akerlof notes, sellers in markets with asymmetric information use brands, screening, and underwriting to maximize profit.
But you know what else that does? It imparts huge administrative costs to private healthcare suppliers, which are then passed onto the buyer; price discrimination only works efficiently if the cost is negligible to the producer. And larger administrative duties makes comparing healthcare providers even more challenging, which increases asymmetric information.
This is, of course, assuming that private healthcare suppliers can accurately predict prices for the majority of high-cost persons, with screening. Or that public health care doesn't exist in the US in the form of emergency rooms. Or that the average person is worth 0 dollars to the overall economy over the course of a lifetime. Or that insurers have a reason to aggressively pay for preventative care.** None of these are true. Which increases costs even further.
*Ok, I'm slightly exaggerating. We're less healthy than Europeans and Japan. But the bulk of the money is in administration.
**It's complicated, but the average person switches health insurance providers fast enough that insurance companies have a significantly decreased incentive to pay for increased costs that will happen to another insurance company.
On January 26 2011 17:08 acker wrote: That's why healthcare insurance costs so much over here*. As Akerlof notes, sellers in markets with asymmetric information use brands, screening, and underwriting to maximize profit.
Many states have group rates or community rates where it is illegal to offer different insurance premium rates regardless of sex, age, or lifestyle. This is not a case of inaccessible asymmetrical information. Health insurance companies have their hands tied on using information that is readily apparent. Uniform pricing and self-selection means that the older, sicklier, and more risk adverse segment of the population are more likely to buy insurance, while the younger, healthier and more risk tolerant are less likely. This skew towards sicklier population drive premium higher prompting more healthier, younger, and risk tolerant individuals to abandon insurance.
Risks are not reflected in premiums. You know what that is? A moral hazard. Administrative red tape is to combat the moral hazards in the system. There are numerous examples of these in the US system. You know why it's such a pain in the ass? Because it is illegal to combat this moral hazards by making people pay directly in monetary form, so instead, the insurance companies make people pay by wasting everybody's time.
Japan and Europe have their own flavor of problems. Health care systems are a mess all around the world.
On January 26 2011 16:42 TanGeng wrote: ACA does have the sustainable growth rate (SGR) provision of the Balance Budge Act of 1997. SGR is the provision that keeps getting the "doc fix" every time it is about to come into affect. It is projected to be one huge saving for Medicare this decade and huge savings in future decades. ACA has the IPAB, a different cost controlling measuring. Not the "doc fix" issue. Same sort of logic applies. Now the savings is only on paper. To realize those savings, Congress would have to have the will power to see it through, will power that Congress has yet to demonstrate. Thus Medicare becomes more and more insolvent. That said if Congress does see it through, we might see the end of Medicare as we know it in a decade or so. No doctors will want to accept Medicare patients then and Congress will effectively kill that entitlement.
Well said. I was wrong in saying that it was specifically the "doc fix" but it is the same sort of idea.
On January 25 2011 17:44 Tianx wrote: I'm so glad that the House voted to give themselves a salary increase for the third term in a row, they clearly deserve it.
/facepalms
Meanwhile Federal civilians get no increase for two years, veterans get no increase for three years, and active duty military get the lowest pay-raise since 1962.
and 9/11 relieve worker who became sick for inhailing to many dust during evacuation process dont get their medical benefit for you know... helping people
I honestly don't see why Americans are so stubborn... Free healthcare is something that should be in place no matter the cost and as soon as it is everyone is screaming life is over.. seriously get ur shit together your making canada look bad by being ontop of you.
On January 26 2011 17:08 acker wrote: That's why healthcare insurance costs so much over here*. As Akerlof notes, sellers in markets with asymmetric information use brands, screening, and underwriting to maximize profit.
Many states have group rates or community rates where it is illegal to offer different insurance premium rates regardless of sex, age, or lifestyle. This is not a case of inaccessible asymmetrical information. Health insurance companies have their hands tied on using information that is readily apparent. Uniform pricing and self-selection means that the older, sicklier, and more risk adverse segment of the population are more likely to buy insurance, while the younger, healthier and more risk tolerant are less likely. This skew towards sicklier population drive premium higher prompting more healthier, younger, and risk tolerant individuals to abandon insurance.
Risks are not reflected in premiums. You know what that is? A moral hazard. Administrative red tape is to combat the moral hazards in the system. There are numerous examples of these in the US system. You know why it's such a pain in the ass? Because it is illegal to combat this moral hazards by making people pay directly in monetary form, so instead, the insurance companies make people pay by wasting everybody's time.
Japan and Europe have their own flavor of problems. Health care systems are a mess all around the world.
Oh god, the talking points. Ever notice how the states with the least regulation tend to do the worst for private healthcare? Or that the most-regulated states achieve near-European levels of coverage?
Or how the most deregulated health insurance countries do worse compared to government-run health-insurance countries?
Or even look at government vs. private healthcare providers. The VA is underfunded, but it's far more efficient than almost any private healthcare provider, and they deal with soldiers, not civilians. Or Medicare.
Look, I'm sure that somewhere in a Galtian paradise there exists a system where a completely-deregulated health care provider will....actually, I can't even say that, unregulated health insurance fails economic logic that hard. Until health providers start gathering Facebook data or something where people post their entire life stories.
What I don't understand is how the rest of the civilized world can get this but America...can't.
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
On January 26 2011 18:13 acker wrote: Or even look at government vs. private healthcare providers. The VA is underfunded, but it's far more efficient than almost any private healthcare provider, and they deal with soldiers, not civilians. Or Medicare.
VA & Medicare are better at controlling price it pays for the service it buys from doctors. They buy health care at a lower cost than private firms. The downside is that doctors flee from the VA system and many doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients.
On January 26 2011 18:13 acker wrote: Look, I'm sure that somewhere in a Galtian paradise there exists a system where a completely-deregulated health care provider will....actually, I can't even say that, unregulated health insurance fails economic logic that hard. Until health providers start gathering Facebook data or something where people post their entire life stories.
This is a face-palm inducing comment. Insurance agencies don't have to do any research to find out the information THEY CAN'T USE. Many states make it illegal to offer different premiums regardless of age, sex, or lifestyle or must offer the same premium to everyone covered within a group. You might can this asymmetrical information, but that'd only be because the government stabbed both eyes out for the insurance company on this point. Not all regulations are created equal. Some regulations are moral hazard inducing nightmares. Others are to compensate for regulations that are nightmares. The latter is less malignant than the former, but often the former is precisely what regulators are striving for. To evaluate a regulatory regime, you'd have to see what crap is in the regulations.
BTW, I don't see a single inkling of "economic logic" in any of your arguments. There is no concept of regulatory burden, of trade-offs, of future expectation, of moral hazard, of risk, of the ERP subsidy, of the tax system, etc. Maybe it's obvious to you, but you need to get those ideas out of your head and into your posts.
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem. Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
On January 26 2011 18:03 Sworn wrote: I honestly don't see why Americans are so stubborn... Free healthcare is something that should be in place no matter the cost and as soon as it is everyone is screaming life is over.. seriously get ur shit together your making canada look bad by being ontop of you.
Free healthcare would require a repeal of the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery (of doctors, nurses and medical supplies/drug manufacturers in this case... and you still have to feed + house slaves anyways). If you mean tax payer funded healthcare, then say it.
On January 27 2011 00:01 TanGeng wrote: Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem.
Do you know the cause of these financial problems and do you know what countries currently have these problems? The other guy was pretty much spot on. The baby boom generation retirement wave is something which some countries have not taken into account. Its one of the reasons of the current financial problems, but the reasons differ per country.
Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
Can you back this up? Link me source which compares the US to welfare states such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. I'm absolutely sure that your statement is false.
Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
Can you back this up? Link me source which compares the US to welfare states such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. I'm absolutely sure that your statement is false.
What are you asking for? Is this some kind of comparison based on statistics or metrics because I factor in more than that. The pattern of consumer choices is a guide for the directions the system may change. Countries like Germany, France, and UK are adopting many features of a for-profit system. Factors like excessive budget shortfalls or cost overruns is a sign of inevitable future declines in quality of service. Other factors like education subsidization, emigration of doctors, and poor medical school enrollment are also signs future problems.
You are also looking for a comparison to US health care system, a heterogeneous heavily regulated profit driven system with insurance as the choice delivery system. There are plenty of problems mostly stemming from regulation-driven moral hazard. It is an terrible baseline. There are regulatory difference between states, so analysis should be on a state-by-state basis factoring in neighbors rather than looking at the entire country in bulk.
I don't really want to provide a full analysis since this is going to be very much off-topic except maybe comparisons to the Switzerland model, which US is trying to emulate. If you really want to do this, pick a single country and I might start another topic. Any one country could take walls of text and references to demonstrate how the system is going fubar. That isn't to say that the US system is not going fubar. Perhaps this is an example of nations in different boats but headed for the same fate.
On January 26 2011 18:03 Sworn wrote: I honestly don't see why Americans are so stubborn... Free healthcare is something that should be in place no matter the cost and as soon as it is everyone is screaming life is over.. seriously get ur shit together your making canada look bad by being ontop of you.
Free healthcare would require a repeal of the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery (of doctors, nurses and medical supplies/drug manufacturers in this case... and you still have to feed + house slaves anyways). If you mean tax payer funded healthcare, then say it.
You don't have to post in a thread showing everyone your arogance. You know he was referring to universal healthcare funded by taxes.
America just needs to fucking draw a line in the sand and half of the people can live on one side and the other half can live on the other.
You are too completely divided on every issue to function as a nation. You can talk about your politicians failures... but ultimately it was you who voted them in.
When the other side collapses into ruin, then you can gloat.
Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
Can you back this up? Link me source which compares the US to welfare states such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. I'm absolutely sure that your statement is false.
What are you asking for? Is this some kind of comparison based on statistics or metrics because I factor in more than that. The pattern of consumer choices is a guide for the directions the system may change. Countries like Germany, France, and UK are adopting many features of a for-profit system. Factors like excessive budget shortfalls or cost overruns is a sign of inevitable future declines in quality of service. Other factors like education subsidization, emigration of doctors, and poor medical school enrollment are also signs future problems.
You are also looking for a comparison to US health care system, a heterogeneous heavily regulated profit driven system with insurance as the choice delivery system. There are plenty of problems mostly stemming from regulation-driven moral hazard. It is an terrible baseline. There are regulatory difference between states, so analysis should be on a state-by-state basis factoring in neighbors rather than looking at the entire country in bulk.
I don't really want to provide a full analysis since this is going to be very much off-topic except maybe comparisons to the Switzerland model, which US is trying to emulate. If you really want to do this, pick a single country and I might start another topic. Any one country could take walls of text and references to demonstrate how the system is going fubar. That isn't to say that the US system is not going fubar. Perhaps this is an example of nations in different boats but headed for the same fate.
Thats a lot of words to basicly say nothing at all. You just make assumptions based on false assumptions. Way to go.
On January 27 2011 02:59 ToxNub wrote: America just needs to fucking draw a line in the sand and half of the people can live on one side and the other half can live on the other.
You are too completely divided on every issue to function as a nation. You can talk about your politicians failures... but ultimately it was you who voted them in.
When the other side collapses into ruin, then you can gloat.
Diversity gives us strength, it is what makes America great. Canada might want to split from Quebec but in America we go by: united we stand, united we fall.
On January 27 2011 02:59 ToxNub wrote: America just needs to fucking draw a line in the sand and half of the people can live on one side and the other half can live on the other.
You are too completely divided on every issue to function as a nation. You can talk about your politicians failures... but ultimately it was you who voted them in.
When the other side collapses into ruin, then you can gloat.
Diversity gives us strength, it is what makes America great. Canada might want to split from Quebec but in America we go by: united we stand, united we fall.
Tell that to the majority of the vocal Tea Partiers who believe anyone left of extreme-right is un-american, socialist, marxist, and/or a Nazi.
Ignoring the obvious redirection of topic, the blatant misrepresentation that Canada wants to split from quebec and not the other way around, the dated nature of that claim, and let's examine the evidence for Quebec's past contributions to political deadlock.
1. .... ?
Can you help me out?
If you think getting nowhere, wasting taxpayer money, and being able to agree on nothing while sladering each other makes you great, then I suggest your next congressional debate be held over redefining your misguided patriotism. I will check back in 2140 to see how it turned out.
On January 26 2011 18:13 acker wrote: Or even look at government vs. private healthcare providers. The VA is underfunded, but it's far more efficient than almost any private healthcare provider, and they deal with soldiers, not civilians. Or Medicare.
VA & Medicare are better at controlling price it pays for the service it buys from doctors. They buy health care at a lower cost than private firms. The downside is that doctors flee from the VA system and many doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients.
False.
Doctors who work for the VHA are paid slightly less but they enjoy benefits and status not given to other doctors. There are quite a few benefits to working for the VHA.
On January 26 2011 18:13 acker wrote: Look, I'm sure that somewhere in a Galtian paradise there exists a system where a completely-deregulated health care provider will....actually, I can't even say that, unregulated health insurance fails economic logic that hard. Until health providers start gathering Facebook data or something where people post their entire life stories.
This is a face-palm inducing comment. Insurance agencies don't have to do any research to find out the information THEY CAN'T USE. Many states make it illegal to offer different premiums regardless of age, sex, or lifestyle or must offer the same premium to everyone covered within a group. You might can this asymmetrical information, but that'd only be because the government stabbed both eyes out for the insurance company on this point. Not all regulations are created equal. Some regulations are moral hazard inducing nightmares. Others are to compensate for regulations that are nightmares. The latter is less malignant than the former, but often the former is precisely what regulators are striving for. To evaluate a regulatory regime, you'd have to see what crap is in the regulations.
BTW, I don't see a single inkling of "economic logic" in any of your arguments. There is no concept of regulatory burden, of trade-offs, of future expectation, of moral hazard, of risk, of the ERP subsidy, of the tax system, etc. Maybe it's obvious to you, but you need to get those ideas out of your head and into your posts.
What? Where are your sources?
First of all, even if insurance companies must provide the same basic level of insurance at a certain price to all residents regardless of age, sex, or lifestyle, they still have dozens of other factors they can use to change the price they charge. Here in CA you can pay more just because you've had ill-health before.
Second, usually the better insurance options DO scale in price by age and in other factors. Often patients will be forced into taking a risk by buying the cheapest plan, or playing it safe and paying big sums of money for a slightly better plan.
A lot of the time some misfortune befalls someone who couldn't afford to pay for a better insurance policy, and they end up going into debt because of medical bills. Roughly 60% of personal bankruptcies in this country cite medical bills as an aggravating factor.
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem. Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
False, again.
Wait times in the UK and Germany are shorter than the wait times in the U.S. Both countries spend less money on healthcare than the U.S. (heck, EVERYONE does.) There is no "poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc." Their health standards are better than here, and citizens are not afraid of going to the doctor because of the risk of medical bankruptcy.
You'd be harder pressed to find a good doctor in many parts of the rural U.S. or even in cities like Detroit, let alone a specialist.
On January 26 2011 10:43 Romantic wrote: [quote] I would add that the accusation of double counting is nonsense; basically Republicans are claiming that because Social Security is a separate fund, the savings don't count for the budget. That is nonsense, the Social Security fund still counts towards the deficit and appropriately more money in the fund means a smaller overall deficit.
Why are you adding the Doc Fix? That would happen with or without the bill, it cannot be counted as an expense of the bill itself. That is like adding my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying, "Wow dinner is expensive today!"
Medicare's spending is also being misinterpreted, much of that money was already being spent on maintaining the current administration of Medicare. Diverting that money to reform the bureaucratic structure isn't double counting. They combine this with the same thing they try with SS, that is, since Medicare and SS are separately funded from the general budget, they don't count as savings. That is dumb for obvious reasons, surpluses in either fund will be used to pay down debt.
You don't seem to understand. These are not "savings". This is actual money (tax money) that is supposedly being used to pay for Social Security but is also somehow going to be used for this bill. How does that work?
The Doc Fix is basically the putting off of cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The problem is, Congress never actually goes through with the bill. Every year they continuously prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursements (that 210 billion we speak of). This money that is supposedly going to be obtained (i.e the cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors) is being used to fund this bill. The problem is, Congress always passes the "doc fix" delaying these cuts. So where does that money come from? They did pass the "doc fix" in 2010.
As for Medicare, you can't seriously claim that this isn't double counting. Medicare is absolutely bleeding money right now. What this bill does is it supposedly uses the money being CUT out of Medicare to fund itself. Well, how? This money can't be used to shore up Medicare AND pay for this bill THAT'S DOUBLE-COUNTING! Unless Congress authorizes the use of these cuts to pay for the new health-care bill, it won't happen. And I HIGHLY doubt they will, seeing how Medicare's going to go under in a few years.
You do not understand what "paying for the bill" means. They "pay" for the bill by offsetting the costs to keep the overall budget even.
Say I pass a $100b bill. If I cut $100b out of the defense budget in the same bill, that would count as "paying for the bill" in politician talk. The cut from the defense is not being counted twice, and overall the bill is neutral and thus "paid for".
You don't even understand the Republican talking point that well. Their accusation of double counting is that SS\Medicare savings cannot be counted towards the overall budget since they are independent programs, which is absurd on its face.
Republicans consistently prey on the ignorance of their voters; this one isn't new.
You should read that article I posted, I think it would give a much better view on the subject than I ever could. You also need to read my post. You didn't respond to the fact that Congress continuously puts off the "doc fix" or that the Social Security money is being counted twice.
Let me try to lay it out here.
Congress cuts 398 billion dollars out of Medicare. The money that is being cut, will be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liabilities.
This bill supposedly takes the money that is being cut from Medicare and supposedly uses it for funding. However, this money was supposed to be used to fund Medicare's huge unfunded liability and pay for future Medicare spending and benefits. Instead, it is supposedly being used to pay for this new legislation. This is double counting.
I'm not trying to mis-lead anyone here. The people claiming that somehow this new entitlement reduces the deficit are, and it could lead to disastrous consequences.
IT IS NOT DOUBLE COUNTING. The fact Medicare has unfunded liabilities IS CALCULATED ALREADY. Did caps help you understand better this time? The CBO looks at the overall change in the entire US federal deficit. This bill's overall impact is reducing it over a 10 year period. I clearly outlined how something is "paid for", the fact Medicare\SS have separate funds is a non-sequiter, those separate funds and liabilities are part of the overall deficit and are calculated in the CBO's estimate. Again, the CBO grades based on the deficit within the period of time specified.
Why are you still bringing up the Doc Fix? It passes WITH OR WITHOUT the healthcare bill and thus cannot be called an expense of the healthcare bill.
Jesus Christ you are frustrating. This is incredibly simple and you cannot seem to grasp it.
The Doc Fix is a HUGE PART OF THIS BILL! CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? good God. The cuts to doctor reimbursements is a part of the funding for this bill. I have already laid out my points in my previous posts. You obviously didn't decide to read them. That's fine. I guess at this point, for both our sake's, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you have time I ask you to please read the Holtz-Eakin article. It explains some of my points in, I believe, simpler terms.
The Doc Fix has been around since 1997. It is not part of this bill.
Unless you are claiming this bill has time traveling ability to create the Doc Fix 14 years in the past you have no logic here.
Edit: not that claiming time travel would be any less stupid...
Yes, and they have continously used been passing the Doc Fix to make sure doctors reimbursements don't get cut.
This is about it for me. Personally I don't feel like you actually read through any of my posts nor read any of the articles I linked to. We both posted our view points and we can just agree to disagree. When it devolves into you calling me stupid I think that's about enough, I respect your viewpoint, I hope that you can respect mine.
EXACTLY.
You said it yourself. This has been happening for a long time. It is NOT double counting BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL.
At this point you've resorted to pitying yourself and claiming we're not reading your posts. We are, you're just being completely illogical. The Doc fix bill is separate from the healthcare bill and therefore is not part of the healthcare reform budget calculations.
Since this has been happening since 1997, the net result is that the Doc fix legislation has no foreseeable change to the budget. The Republicans wanted to axe it because they wanted to cut medicare spending by $200 billion. For the 13th year in a row, they failed, so now they've turned it into part of the healthcare bill with their propaganda arm, when it has been a separate issue for more than a decade.
Get your facts straight.
There is a doc fix in this bill that DOES cut payments to Medicare doctors, providers and physicians starting six years from now. The problem is that this will be repealed (like they do every year) and that "savings" will not be realized.
Ugh....no there is not. If you wish to continue spreading this lie, at least come up with a source that fabricates it in print decently.
Secondly, that 'nother "good" article is just that same guy again, on a different publication. You can come up with OP ED articles by the dozen, and I bet I will be able to find three times as many articles in standard print and in editorials that claim the opposite.
One of the biggest problems with Obamacare is that it makes insurance companies unprofitable by forcing them to insure people with preexisting conditions
LOL covering people with pre-existing conditions (aka your fucking diabetic grandmother) is a PROBLEM?
Jesus christ. You can either have half the country getting fucked by pre-existing conditions or you can mandate everyone has to have health insurance at all times so they cannot just apply when something is wrong. There is no middle ground.
From an economic point of view, forcing PRIVATE INSURERS (ie companies) to take on increased costs is a big problem. What would you do if you, as a business owner, were told by the government that you were going to be forced to eat a bunch of costs that drastically reduce your profitability (if not eliminate it entirely)?
Your post is typical of the whole problem with the health care debate. Too many people get wrapped up in emotions and the "feel good" intentions without thinking about what actually is economically feasible. It's a very small-minded approach to the debate.
Any reform of healthcare necessarily requires sacrifices. Right now, a lot of people don't fully understand what Obamacare sacrificed, yet more and more are figuring it out and discovering that they don't like it.
So private insurers are told to pay for something without getting any compensation? Are you really thinking that there will not be an adequate compensation for the cost? The government bailed out banks which ruined tons of peoples fortunes and they wont help insurers which actually help people? Obviously they wont do that because health insurance doesnt make as much profit and that is all you people care about.
Too many people are only thinking about their own damn wallet and dont care about those grandmas with problems. Sure it is much cheaper to let them die earlier, but it also makes you a greedy little [insert whatever worst personal insult you can come up with].
We NEED to have our societies become more friendly towards each other or within themselves or we will in fact end up with a society like the one portraied in Robocop with companies running the cities and governments - which people voted for - not existing anymore. It is also much too easy to build a bomb and dissatisfied people are prone to overreact sometimes and bombs can kill wayy too many people for their cost. Just look at the Oklahoma City bombing to see what one man can do.
From an economic standpoint the current healthcare situation in the U.S. isn't helpful for companies anyway.
A lot of U.S. companies that have to compete overseas will move jobs to other countries because they don't want to lose money by providing their employees with an insurance package. GM, Ford, etc. have all complained about the losses they incur because of their workforce concentrations here and how it basically forces them to spend billions of dollars on insurance programs for their employees. Toyota, Honda, and the European car makers don't have to contend with this issue very much, because health insurance is provided by the government in those countries.
Either way, the net effect on the consumer is pretty much the same in terms of cost. In fact, it's better in countries with a well-organized public health system because it's more streamlined and fairer than with private companies. No, governments aren't completely efficient, but it's way better to standardize something as essential as healthcare rather than put it in the hands of hundreds of private companies who are in search of a profit.
As an analogy, do we have privatized police and fire services? No, because we can't really trust them to be effective. It also just doesn't make sense: if you have the misfortune of being mugged or having your house burned down, are you the one who is forced to pay? If we had privatized fire and police services, how would we know that the services aren't reduced in order to reduce costs and make more money?
Another example is the military. We've seen what private contractors do (take Blackwater, for example). We see pretty much the same mentality and incompetence among insurance companies, yet Americans continue to defend the almost completely privatized (and completely garbage) system we have for healthcare right now.
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem. Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
False, again. Wait times in the UK and Germany are shorter than the wait times in the U.S. Both countries spend less money on healthcare than the U.S. (heck, EVERYONE does.) There is no "poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc." Their health standards are better than here, and citizens are not afraid of going to the doctor because of the risk of medical bankruptcy.
First of all, what a terrible mess. There is a too much to look when talking about "Europe and Japan. Their systems are different in details. It's also valuable to have forward looking perspective to see where the system will take you rather than just looking backwards.
Long wait times are worst in Canada. US is poor as well and relatively you might say UK and the such look good, but objectively it's terrible everywhere. Poor distribution of specialist and poor geographical distribution is a Japanese problem. There is some rural unavailability and a shortage of obstetrics. US has poor distribution as well with most the talent gravitating towards sports medicine, cosmetics, and radiology and away from the heavily regulated areas or most vulnerable to malpractice. US has the AMA regulatory guidelines to thank for constricting physician supply. You can probably point out more problems with the US system.
Anyways, saying that a foreign system is relative better or worse at this specific moment in time is neither here nor there in judging that system. I can complain about the US system, too. The real issue is whether the system is good and whether it is sustainable. Also when looking to replicate foreign systems, it is highly necessary to look at all factors involved. The German system is not just a tax on employees. Highly crucial to its "success" is enough regulatory power to depress or fix prices and nearly complete subsidization of education so they can have workers willing to accept the depressed prices.
I believe the ACA is going to be an unmitigated disaster precisely because it is missing some crucial pieces around the individual mandate to control costs and ensure supply. Those pieces like price setting regulator power and education would not have been palatable to Americans, so we got this half step which is worse than doing nothing at all. And even if we could copy the entire system, there is the question of whether it is prudent to adopt a system that is presently moving in the opposite directions and and showing chinks in sustainability.
I guess all these ACA proponents want to pigeon-hole my position as "objectively defending the status quo." I haven't done that at all. It's an alternative critique which also applies to all of the European systems. You folks can go on slamming the US health care system for how much it sucks.
On a side note, Professor Reinhardt, the author of the economix blog, is always worth reading because of interesting observations. It's true even if you don't agree with his conclusions.
On January 28 2011 08:12 wherebugsgo wrote: From an economic standpoint the current healthcare situation in the U.S. isn't helpful for companies anyway.
A lot of U.S. companies that have to compete overseas will move jobs to other countries because they don't want to lose money by providing their employees with an insurance package. GM, Ford, etc. have all complained about the losses they incur because of their workforce concentrations here and how it basically forces them to spend billions of dollars on insurance programs for their employees. Toyota, Honda, and the European car makers don't have to contend with this issue very much, because health insurance is provided by the government in those countries.
Either way, the net effect on the consumer is pretty much the same in terms of cost. In fact, it's better in countries with a well-organized public health system because it's more streamlined and fairer than with private companies. No, governments aren't completely efficient, but it's way better to standardize something as essential as healthcare rather than put it in the hands of hundreds of private companies who are in search of a profit.
As an analogy, do we have privatized police and fire services? No, because we can't really trust them to be effective. It also just doesn't make sense: if you have the misfortune of being mugged or having your house burned down, are you the one who is forced to pay? If we had privatized fire and police services, how would we know that the services aren't reduced in order to reduce costs and make more money?
Another example is the military. We've seen what private contractors do (take Blackwater, for example). We see pretty much the same mentality and incompetence among insurance companies, yet Americans continue to defend the almost completely privatized (and completely garbage) system we have for healthcare right now.
What explains the competitive difference between GM, Ford in Michigan vs. Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda in Texas, Indiana, and Alabama?? It must be the private nature of the health care system!...that they all have...
French and Germans would consider their system a private system. Swiss has a private system, too. All their health providers are private clinics or hospitals.
Fire protection service has been privately offered before and it was effective. In fact, in Southern California, it is the public system that is failing and giving private companies a chance: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/06/30/privatizing_fire_protection/. I think more homeowners are asking why their publicly funded fire service has such a poor budget and provides such poor service.
Again, no mention of moral hazard, regulatory burden, group and community rates, ERP subsidies, mandatory coverage, mandatory insurance rates, etc.
You keep repeating "private," but you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean next time. Last time I checked, Medicare and Medicaid was about 20% of total health care outlays making the US system at least 20% publicly funded, and it's not like other systems don't incorporate nearly 100% private providers.
On January 27 2011 03:18 BroodjeBaller wrote: Thats a lot of words to basicly say nothing at all. You just make assumptions based on false assumptions. Way to go.
You asked for sources in general about the whole post. It is a lot more messy than one shout for "sources!" will command. Health care systems are complicated. I prefer complicated. It give people an nuanced understanding of the world. If you don't like complicated, I can offer you vacuousness, instead. I can even put that in a neat little gift box for you.
On January 28 2011 15:20 Bosu wrote: Kinda blows my mind that one of the biggest things Obama campaigned on, health care reform, meets so much opposition.
The details were underwhelming AND the stuff coming out of Massachusetts all point to disaster. Hey, it's been tried for four years already!
On January 27 2011 03:18 BroodjeBaller wrote: Thats a lot of words to basicly say nothing at all. You just make assumptions based on false assumptions. Way to go.
You asked for sources in general about the whole post. It is a lot more messy than one shout for "sources!" will command. Health care systems are complicated. I prefer complicated. It give people an nuanced understanding of the world. If you don't like complicated, I can offer you vacuousness, instead. I can even put that in a neat little gift box for you.
Hmm maybe something is wrong with your reading comprehension, but I didnt ask for sources in general about the whole post. I asked for sources of your statements in just these 2 lines:
Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
Can you back this up? Link me source which compares the US to welfare states such as Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. I'm absolutely sure that your statement is false.
All these things are measurable in numbers. I assume you dont say these things without reason, so I guess you have seen these numbers somewhere. A quick google search already showed me that your "long wait lines" statement is completely false. Poor geographical distribution of doctors doesnt even make sense when look at the density of population and the size of these countries. You are simply just shouting nonsense and you cant back it up. And yes I know health care systems are complicated, but werent talking about the details of health care systems and how certain health care systems work.
On January 28 2011 21:21 BroodjeBaller wrote: Hmm maybe something is wrong with your reading comprehension, but I didnt ask for sources in general about the whole post. I asked for sources of your statements in just these 2 lines:
Ahhh, you jumped into the middle of that exchange. No wonder, it makes no sense. In an exchange that was broadly about Europe and Japan, you want to very specifically it to apply my blanket bludgeon to four countries. If we're at 4 countries, how about narrowing it down even further to one single country? Then instead of a bludgeon I can apply a very specific critique to said country.
But for starters you can look at Sweden's specialty wait time: http://www.thelocal.se/31554/20110120/ It was dissatisfying enough to the Swedes there their government felt it necessary to pass a new law trying to ban long waits.
But the metrics of maximum wait time can be gamed by adding delay to those with more urgent needs. There's more to waiting lines than the metrics that are published.
On January 28 2011 21:21 BroodjeBaller wrote: Hmm maybe something is wrong with your reading comprehension, but I didnt ask for sources in general about the whole post. I asked for sources of your statements in just these 2 lines:
Ahhh, you jumped into the middle of that exchange. No wonder, it makes no sense. In an exchange that was broadly about Europe and Japan, you want to very specifically it to apply my blanket bludgeon to four countries. If we're at 4 countries, how about narrowing it down even further to one single country? Then instead of a bludgeon I can apply a very specific critique to said country.
But for starters you can look at Sweden's specialty wait time: http://www.thelocal.se/31554/20110120/ It was dissatisfying enough to the Swedes there their government felt it necessary to pass a new law trying to ban long waits.
But the metrics of maximum wait time can be gamed by adding delay to those with more urgent needs. There's more to waiting lines than the metrics that are published.
"For starters look at Sweden" ... !? Is that really an "innocent pick". It's certainly true that Sweden has problems with waiting times ... , but why not "continue" and look at the other countries like Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc:
Take the Commonwealth Survey for example which indicates that all of the above countries have an equally or better performing health system at lower cost.
Popping in to advertise an interesting article on reducing costs of US healthcare: "The Hot Spotters Can we lower medical costs by giving the neediest patients better care?"
Brenner wasn’t all that interested in costs; he was more interested in helping people who received bad health care. But in his experience the people with the highest medical costs—the people cycling in and out of the hospital—were usually the people receiving the worst care. “Emergency-room visits and hospital admissions should be considered failures of the health-care system until proven otherwise,” he told me—failures of prevention and of timely, effective care.
If he could find the people whose use of medical care was highest, he figured, he could do something to help them. If he helped them, he would also be lowering their health-care costs. And, if the stats approach to crime was right, targeting those with the highest health-care costs would help lower the entire city’s health-care costs. His calculations revealed that just one per cent of the hundred thousand people who made use of Camden’s medical facilities accounted for thirty per cent of its costs. That’s only a thousand people—about half the size of a typical family physician’s panel of patients.
The first person they found for him was a man in his mid-forties whom I’ll call Frank Hendricks. Hendricks had severe congestive heart failure, chronic asthma, uncontrolled diabetes, hypothyroidism, gout, and a history of smoking and alcohol abuse. He weighed five hundred and sixty pounds. In the previous three years, he had spent as much time in hospitals as out. When Brenner met him, he was in intensive care with a tracheotomy and a feeding tube, having developed septic shock from a gallbladder infection.
Brenner visited him daily. “I just basically sat in his room like I was a third-year med student, hanging out with him for an hour, hour and a half every day, trying to figure out what makes the guy tick,” he recalled. He learned that Hendricks used to be an auto detailer and a cook. He had a longtime girlfriend and two children, now grown. A toxic combination of poor health, Johnnie Walker Red, and, it emerged, cocaine addiction had left him unreliably employed, uninsured, and living in a welfare motel. He had no consistent set of doctors, and almost no prospects for turning his situation around.
After several months, he had recovered enough to be discharged. But, out in the world, his life was simply another hospitalization waiting to happen. By then, however, Brenner had figured out a few things he could do to help. Some of it was simple doctor stuff. He made sure he followed Hendricks closely enough to recognize when serious problems were emerging. He double-checked that the plans and prescriptions the specialists had made for Hendricks’s many problems actually fit together—and, when they didn’t, he got on the phone to sort things out. He teamed up with a nurse practitioner who could make home visits to check blood-sugar levels and blood pressure, teach Hendricks about what he could do to stay healthy, and make sure he was getting his medications.
A lot of what Brenner had to do, though, went beyond the usual doctor stuff. Brenner got a social worker to help Hendricks apply for disability insurance, so that he could leave the chaos of welfare motels, and have access to a consistent set of physicians. The team also pushed him to find sources of stability and value in his life. They got him to return to Alcoholics Anonymous, and, when Brenner found out that he was a devout Christian, he urged him to return to church. He told Hendricks that he needed to cook his own food once in a while, so he could get back in the habit of doing it. The main thing he was up against was Hendricks’s hopelessness. He’d given up. “Can you imagine being in the hospital that long, what that does to you?” Brenner asked.
I spoke to Hendricks recently. He has gone without alcohol for a year, cocaine for two years, and smoking for three years. He lives with his girlfriend in a safer neighborhood, goes to church, and weathers family crises. He cooks his own meals now. His diabetes and congestive heart failure are under much better control. He’s lost two hundred and twenty pounds, which means, among other things, that if he falls he can pick himself up, rather than having to call for an ambulance.
Was this kind of success replicable? As word went out about Brenner’s interest in patients like Hendricks, he received more referrals. Camden doctors were delighted to have someone help with their “worst of the worst.” He took on half a dozen patients, then two dozen, then more. It became increasingly difficult to do this work alongside his regular medical practice. The clinic was already under financial strain, and received nothing for assisting these patients. If it were up to him, he’d recruit a whole staff of primary-care doctors and nurses and social workers, based right in the neighborhoods where the costliest patients lived. With the tens of millions of dollars in hospital bills they could save, he’d pay the staff double to serve as Camden’s élite medical force and to rescue the city’s health-care system.
But that’s not how the health-insurance system is built.
“Take two ten-year-old boys with asthma,” he said. “From a disease standpoint, they’re exactly the same cost, right? Wrong. Imagine one of those kids never fills his inhalers and has been in urgent care with asthma attacks three times over the last year, probably because Mom and Dad aren’t really on top of it.” That’s the sort of patient Gunn uses his company’s medical-intelligence software program to zero in on—a patient who is sick and getting inadequate care. “That’s really the sweet spot for preventive care,” Gunn said.
He pulled up patients with known coronary-artery disease. There were nine hundred and twenty-one, he said, reading off the screen. He clicked a few more times and raised his eyebrows. One in seven of them had not had a full office visit with a physician in more than a year. “You can do something about that,” he said.
As he sorts through such stories, Gunn usually finds larger patterns, too. He told me about an analysis he had recently done for a big information-technology company on the East Coast. It provided health benefits to seven thousand employees and family members, and had forty million dollars in “spend.” The firm had already raised the employees’ insurance co-payments considerably, hoping to give employees a reason to think twice about unnecessary medical visits, [tuna comment: LOL] tests, and procedures—make them have some “skin in the game,” as they say. Indeed, almost every category of costly medical care went down: doctor visits, emergency-room and hospital visits, drug prescriptions. Yet employee health costs continued to rise—climbing almost ten per cent each year. The company was baffled.
Gunn’s team took a look at the hot spots. The outliers, it turned out, were predominantly early retirees. Most had multiple chronic conditions—in particular, coronary-artery disease, asthma, and complex mental illness. One had badly worsening heart disease and diabetes, and medical bills over two years in excess of eighty thousand dollars. The man, dealing with higher co-payments on a fixed income, had cut back to filling only half his medication prescriptions for his high cholesterol and diabetes. He made few doctor visits. He avoided the E.R.—until a heart attack necessitated emergency surgery and left him disabled with chronic heart failure.
The higher co-payments had backfired, Gunn said. While medical costs for most employees flattened out, those for early retirees jumped seventeen per cent. The sickest patients became much more expensive because they put off care and prevention until it was too late.
it goes on but i don't want you to flood you guys to death =( please read it.
Brenner wasn’t all that interested in costs; he was more interested in helping people who received bad health care. But in his experience the people with the highest medical costs—the people cycling in and out of the hospital—were usually the people receiving the worst care. “Emergency-room visits and hospital admissions should be considered failures of the health-care system until proven otherwise,” he told me—failures of prevention and of timely, effective care.
If he could find the people whose use of medical care was highest, he figured, he could do something to help them. If he helped them, he would also be lowering their health-care costs. And, if the stats approach to crime was right, targeting those with the highest health-care costs would help lower the entire city’s health-care costs. His calculations revealed that just one per cent of the hundred thousand people who made use of Camden’s medical facilities accounted for thirty per cent of its costs. That’s only a thousand people—about half the size of a typical family physician’s panel of patients.
The first person they found for him was a man in his mid-forties whom I’ll call Frank Hendricks. Hendricks had severe congestive heart failure, chronic asthma, uncontrolled diabetes, hypothyroidism, gout, and a history of smoking and alcohol abuse. He weighed five hundred and sixty pounds. In the previous three years, he had spent as much time in hospitals as out. When Brenner met him, he was in intensive care with a tracheotomy and a feeding tube, having developed septic shock from a gallbladder infection.
Brenner visited him daily. “I just basically sat in his room like I was a third-year med student, hanging out with him for an hour, hour and a half every day, trying to figure out what makes the guy tick,” he recalled. He learned that Hendricks used to be an auto detailer and a cook. He had a longtime girlfriend and two children, now grown. A toxic combination of poor health, Johnnie Walker Red, and, it emerged, cocaine addiction had left him unreliably employed, uninsured, and living in a welfare motel. He had no consistent set of doctors, and almost no prospects for turning his situation around.
After several months, he had recovered enough to be discharged. But, out in the world, his life was simply another hospitalization waiting to happen. By then, however, Brenner had figured out a few things he could do to help. Some of it was simple doctor stuff. He made sure he followed Hendricks closely enough to recognize when serious problems were emerging. He double-checked that the plans and prescriptions the specialists had made for Hendricks’s many problems actually fit together—and, when they didn’t, he got on the phone to sort things out. He teamed up with a nurse practitioner who could make home visits to check blood-sugar levels and blood pressure, teach Hendricks about what he could do to stay healthy, and make sure he was getting his medications.
A lot of what Brenner had to do, though, went beyond the usual doctor stuff. Brenner got a social worker to help Hendricks apply for disability insurance, so that he could leave the chaos of welfare motels, and have access to a consistent set of physicians. The team also pushed him to find sources of stability and value in his life. They got him to return to Alcoholics Anonymous, and, when Brenner found out that he was a devout Christian, he urged him to return to church. He told Hendricks that he needed to cook his own food once in a while, so he could get back in the habit of doing it. The main thing he was up against was Hendricks’s hopelessness. He’d given up. “Can you imagine being in the hospital that long, what that does to you?” Brenner asked.
I spoke to Hendricks recently. He has gone without alcohol for a year, cocaine for two years, and smoking for three years. He lives with his girlfriend in a safer neighborhood, goes to church, and weathers family crises. He cooks his own meals now. His diabetes and congestive heart failure are under much better control. He’s lost two hundred and twenty pounds, which means, among other things, that if he falls he can pick himself up, rather than having to call for an ambulance.
Was this kind of success replicable? As word went out about Brenner’s interest in patients like Hendricks, he received more referrals. Camden doctors were delighted to have someone help with their “worst of the worst.” He took on half a dozen patients, then two dozen, then more. It became increasingly difficult to do this work alongside his regular medical practice. The clinic was already under financial strain, and received nothing for assisting these patients. If it were up to him, he’d recruit a whole staff of primary-care doctors and nurses and social workers, based right in the neighborhoods where the costliest patients lived. With the tens of millions of dollars in hospital bills they could save, he’d pay the staff double to serve as Camden’s élite medical force and to rescue the city’s health-care system.
But that’s not how the health-insurance system is built.
“Take two ten-year-old boys with asthma,” he said. “From a disease standpoint, they’re exactly the same cost, right? Wrong. Imagine one of those kids never fills his inhalers and has been in urgent care with asthma attacks three times over the last year, probably because Mom and Dad aren’t really on top of it.” That’s the sort of patient Gunn uses his company’s medical-intelligence software program to zero in on—a patient who is sick and getting inadequate care. “That’s really the sweet spot for preventive care,” Gunn said.
He pulled up patients with known coronary-artery disease. There were nine hundred and twenty-one, he said, reading off the screen. He clicked a few more times and raised his eyebrows. One in seven of them had not had a full office visit with a physician in more than a year. “You can do something about that,” he said.
As he sorts through such stories, Gunn usually finds larger patterns, too. He told me about an analysis he had recently done for a big information-technology company on the East Coast. It provided health benefits to seven thousand employees and family members, and had forty million dollars in “spend.” The firm had already raised the employees’ insurance co-payments considerably, hoping to give employees a reason to think twice about unnecessary medical visits, [tuna comment: LOL] tests, and procedures—make them have some “skin in the game,” as they say. Indeed, almost every category of costly medical care went down: doctor visits, emergency-room and hospital visits, drug prescriptions. Yet employee health costs continued to rise—climbing almost ten per cent each year. The company was baffled.
Gunn’s team took a look at the hot spots. The outliers, it turned out, were predominantly early retirees. Most had multiple chronic conditions—in particular, coronary-artery disease, asthma, and complex mental illness. One had badly worsening heart disease and diabetes, and medical bills over two years in excess of eighty thousand dollars. The man, dealing with higher co-payments on a fixed income, had cut back to filling only half his medication prescriptions for his high cholesterol and diabetes. He made few doctor visits. He avoided the E.R.—until a heart attack necessitated emergency surgery and left him disabled with chronic heart failure.
The higher co-payments had backfired, Gunn said. While medical costs for most employees flattened out, those for early retirees jumped seventeen per cent. The sickest patients became much more expensive because they put off care and prevention until it was too late.
it goes on but i don't want you to flood you guys to death =( please read it.
Very interesting. I don't see how gov't sponsored healthcare solves any of the problems outlined in that article. If anything, that just translates the system from private to public. Instead of insurance premiums and copays you'd just have taxes.
And to respond to the original topic: The healthcare bill was a bloated inefficient and possibly unconstitutional piece of garbage. It didn't accomplish anything that liberals actually would - all it did was increase risk for insurance companies, which would drive up costs, force small businesses to increase overhead massively, and tax healthy people for other people's problems.
It was a disaster and should never have been passed. Any intelligent person, democrat or republican, should see that.
Brenner wasn’t all that interested in costs; he was more interested in helping people who received bad health care. But in his experience the people with the highest medical costs—the people cycling in and out of the hospital—were usually the people receiving the worst care. “Emergency-room visits and hospital admissions should be considered failures of the health-care system until proven otherwise,” he told me—failures of prevention and of timely, effective care.
If he could find the people whose use of medical care was highest, he figured, he could do something to help them. If he helped them, he would also be lowering their health-care costs. And, if the stats approach to crime was right, targeting those with the highest health-care costs would help lower the entire city’s health-care costs. His calculations revealed that just one per cent of the hundred thousand people who made use of Camden’s medical facilities accounted for thirty per cent of its costs. That’s only a thousand people—about half the size of a typical family physician’s panel of patients.
The first person they found for him was a man in his mid-forties whom I’ll call Frank Hendricks. Hendricks had severe congestive heart failure, chronic asthma, uncontrolled diabetes, hypothyroidism, gout, and a history of smoking and alcohol abuse. He weighed five hundred and sixty pounds. In the previous three years, he had spent as much time in hospitals as out. When Brenner met him, he was in intensive care with a tracheotomy and a feeding tube, having developed septic shock from a gallbladder infection.
Brenner visited him daily. “I just basically sat in his room like I was a third-year med student, hanging out with him for an hour, hour and a half every day, trying to figure out what makes the guy tick,” he recalled. He learned that Hendricks used to be an auto detailer and a cook. He had a longtime girlfriend and two children, now grown. A toxic combination of poor health, Johnnie Walker Red, and, it emerged, cocaine addiction had left him unreliably employed, uninsured, and living in a welfare motel. He had no consistent set of doctors, and almost no prospects for turning his situation around.
After several months, he had recovered enough to be discharged. But, out in the world, his life was simply another hospitalization waiting to happen. By then, however, Brenner had figured out a few things he could do to help. Some of it was simple doctor stuff. He made sure he followed Hendricks closely enough to recognize when serious problems were emerging. He double-checked that the plans and prescriptions the specialists had made for Hendricks’s many problems actually fit together—and, when they didn’t, he got on the phone to sort things out. He teamed up with a nurse practitioner who could make home visits to check blood-sugar levels and blood pressure, teach Hendricks about what he could do to stay healthy, and make sure he was getting his medications.
A lot of what Brenner had to do, though, went beyond the usual doctor stuff. Brenner got a social worker to help Hendricks apply for disability insurance, so that he could leave the chaos of welfare motels, and have access to a consistent set of physicians. The team also pushed him to find sources of stability and value in his life. They got him to return to Alcoholics Anonymous, and, when Brenner found out that he was a devout Christian, he urged him to return to church. He told Hendricks that he needed to cook his own food once in a while, so he could get back in the habit of doing it. The main thing he was up against was Hendricks’s hopelessness. He’d given up. “Can you imagine being in the hospital that long, what that does to you?” Brenner asked.
I spoke to Hendricks recently. He has gone without alcohol for a year, cocaine for two years, and smoking for three years. He lives with his girlfriend in a safer neighborhood, goes to church, and weathers family crises. He cooks his own meals now. His diabetes and congestive heart failure are under much better control. He’s lost two hundred and twenty pounds, which means, among other things, that if he falls he can pick himself up, rather than having to call for an ambulance.
Was this kind of success replicable? As word went out about Brenner’s interest in patients like Hendricks, he received more referrals. Camden doctors were delighted to have someone help with their “worst of the worst.” He took on half a dozen patients, then two dozen, then more. It became increasingly difficult to do this work alongside his regular medical practice. The clinic was already under financial strain, and received nothing for assisting these patients. If it were up to him, he’d recruit a whole staff of primary-care doctors and nurses and social workers, based right in the neighborhoods where the costliest patients lived. With the tens of millions of dollars in hospital bills they could save, he’d pay the staff double to serve as Camden’s élite medical force and to rescue the city’s health-care system.
But that’s not how the health-insurance system is built.
“Take two ten-year-old boys with asthma,” he said. “From a disease standpoint, they’re exactly the same cost, right? Wrong. Imagine one of those kids never fills his inhalers and has been in urgent care with asthma attacks three times over the last year, probably because Mom and Dad aren’t really on top of it.” That’s the sort of patient Gunn uses his company’s medical-intelligence software program to zero in on—a patient who is sick and getting inadequate care. “That’s really the sweet spot for preventive care,” Gunn said.
He pulled up patients with known coronary-artery disease. There were nine hundred and twenty-one, he said, reading off the screen. He clicked a few more times and raised his eyebrows. One in seven of them had not had a full office visit with a physician in more than a year. “You can do something about that,” he said.
As he sorts through such stories, Gunn usually finds larger patterns, too. He told me about an analysis he had recently done for a big information-technology company on the East Coast. It provided health benefits to seven thousand employees and family members, and had forty million dollars in “spend.” The firm had already raised the employees’ insurance co-payments considerably, hoping to give employees a reason to think twice about unnecessary medical visits, [tuna comment: LOL] tests, and procedures—make them have some “skin in the game,” as they say. Indeed, almost every category of costly medical care went down: doctor visits, emergency-room and hospital visits, drug prescriptions. Yet employee health costs continued to rise—climbing almost ten per cent each year. The company was baffled.
Gunn’s team took a look at the hot spots. The outliers, it turned out, were predominantly early retirees. Most had multiple chronic conditions—in particular, coronary-artery disease, asthma, and complex mental illness. One had badly worsening heart disease and diabetes, and medical bills over two years in excess of eighty thousand dollars. The man, dealing with higher co-payments on a fixed income, had cut back to filling only half his medication prescriptions for his high cholesterol and diabetes. He made few doctor visits. He avoided the E.R.—until a heart attack necessitated emergency surgery and left him disabled with chronic heart failure.
The higher co-payments had backfired, Gunn said. While medical costs for most employees flattened out, those for early retirees jumped seventeen per cent. The sickest patients became much more expensive because they put off care and prevention until it was too late.
it goes on but i don't want you to flood you guys to death =( please read it.
Very interesting. I don't see how gov't sponsored healthcare solves any of the problems outlined in that article. If anything, that just translates the system from private to public. Instead of insurance premiums and copays you'd just have taxes.
And to respond to the original topic: The healthcare bill was a bloated inefficient and possibly unconstitutional piece of garbage. It didn't accomplish anything that liberals actually would - all it did was increase risk for insurance companies, which would drive up costs, force small businesses to increase overhead massively, and tax healthy people for other people's problems.
It was a disaster and should never have been passed. Any intelligent person, democrat or republican, should see that.
Oh yeah I should note, that article really had nothing to do with the healthcare bill at all except it kind of shows the inefficiencies of the private insurance companies in using their data to create their own policies. The article shows hope that they're figuring it out, and once they fix up incentivizing (lower cost) preventative care, hopefully a big part of the healthcare problem will go away.
I agree that the government trying to intervene is being a bit distracting, and as I've mentioned in other threads, I'm in favor of throwing out and recreating the FDA, and also possibly creating new regulatory agencies for ensuring quality of healthcare with more transparency and with more merit-based hiring rather than spoils-system appointing. Our current model of bureaucracy for regulatory agencies is really inefficient and contaminated, when theoretically bureaucracy isn't supposed to be an inefficient method of service disposal (ala Max Weber's writings on it).
Article also shows that since the two main forms of care right now are only private practice doctor visits and ER visits, there may be an open market for more casual preventative clinics or something. I dunno the exact logistics of that kind of thing, but preventative care (including possible personallifeintervention strategies for those patients with harmful environments) is definitely being neglected overall.
Brenner wasn’t all that interested in costs; he was more interested in helping people who received bad health care. But in his experience the people with the highest medical costs—the people cycling in and out of the hospital—were usually the people receiving the worst care. “Emergency-room visits and hospital admissions should be considered failures of the health-care system until proven otherwise,” he told me—failures of prevention and of timely, effective care.
If he could find the people whose use of medical care was highest, he figured, he could do something to help them. If he helped them, he would also be lowering their health-care costs. And, if the stats approach to crime was right, targeting those with the highest health-care costs would help lower the entire city’s health-care costs. His calculations revealed that just one per cent of the hundred thousand people who made use of Camden’s medical facilities accounted for thirty per cent of its costs. That’s only a thousand people—about half the size of a typical family physician’s panel of patients.
The first person they found for him was a man in his mid-forties whom I’ll call Frank Hendricks. Hendricks had severe congestive heart failure, chronic asthma, uncontrolled diabetes, hypothyroidism, gout, and a history of smoking and alcohol abuse. He weighed five hundred and sixty pounds. In the previous three years, he had spent as much time in hospitals as out. When Brenner met him, he was in intensive care with a tracheotomy and a feeding tube, having developed septic shock from a gallbladder infection.
Brenner visited him daily. “I just basically sat in his room like I was a third-year med student, hanging out with him for an hour, hour and a half every day, trying to figure out what makes the guy tick,” he recalled. He learned that Hendricks used to be an auto detailer and a cook. He had a longtime girlfriend and two children, now grown. A toxic combination of poor health, Johnnie Walker Red, and, it emerged, cocaine addiction had left him unreliably employed, uninsured, and living in a welfare motel. He had no consistent set of doctors, and almost no prospects for turning his situation around.
After several months, he had recovered enough to be discharged. But, out in the world, his life was simply another hospitalization waiting to happen. By then, however, Brenner had figured out a few things he could do to help. Some of it was simple doctor stuff. He made sure he followed Hendricks closely enough to recognize when serious problems were emerging. He double-checked that the plans and prescriptions the specialists had made for Hendricks’s many problems actually fit together—and, when they didn’t, he got on the phone to sort things out. He teamed up with a nurse practitioner who could make home visits to check blood-sugar levels and blood pressure, teach Hendricks about what he could do to stay healthy, and make sure he was getting his medications.
A lot of what Brenner had to do, though, went beyond the usual doctor stuff. Brenner got a social worker to help Hendricks apply for disability insurance, so that he could leave the chaos of welfare motels, and have access to a consistent set of physicians. The team also pushed him to find sources of stability and value in his life. They got him to return to Alcoholics Anonymous, and, when Brenner found out that he was a devout Christian, he urged him to return to church. He told Hendricks that he needed to cook his own food once in a while, so he could get back in the habit of doing it. The main thing he was up against was Hendricks’s hopelessness. He’d given up. “Can you imagine being in the hospital that long, what that does to you?” Brenner asked.
I spoke to Hendricks recently. He has gone without alcohol for a year, cocaine for two years, and smoking for three years. He lives with his girlfriend in a safer neighborhood, goes to church, and weathers family crises. He cooks his own meals now. His diabetes and congestive heart failure are under much better control. He’s lost two hundred and twenty pounds, which means, among other things, that if he falls he can pick himself up, rather than having to call for an ambulance.
Was this kind of success replicable? As word went out about Brenner’s interest in patients like Hendricks, he received more referrals. Camden doctors were delighted to have someone help with their “worst of the worst.” He took on half a dozen patients, then two dozen, then more. It became increasingly difficult to do this work alongside his regular medical practice. The clinic was already under financial strain, and received nothing for assisting these patients. If it were up to him, he’d recruit a whole staff of primary-care doctors and nurses and social workers, based right in the neighborhoods where the costliest patients lived. With the tens of millions of dollars in hospital bills they could save, he’d pay the staff double to serve as Camden’s élite medical force and to rescue the city’s health-care system.
But that’s not how the health-insurance system is built.
“Take two ten-year-old boys with asthma,” he said. “From a disease standpoint, they’re exactly the same cost, right? Wrong. Imagine one of those kids never fills his inhalers and has been in urgent care with asthma attacks three times over the last year, probably because Mom and Dad aren’t really on top of it.” That’s the sort of patient Gunn uses his company’s medical-intelligence software program to zero in on—a patient who is sick and getting inadequate care. “That’s really the sweet spot for preventive care,” Gunn said.
He pulled up patients with known coronary-artery disease. There were nine hundred and twenty-one, he said, reading off the screen. He clicked a few more times and raised his eyebrows. One in seven of them had not had a full office visit with a physician in more than a year. “You can do something about that,” he said.
As he sorts through such stories, Gunn usually finds larger patterns, too. He told me about an analysis he had recently done for a big information-technology company on the East Coast. It provided health benefits to seven thousand employees and family members, and had forty million dollars in “spend.” The firm had already raised the employees’ insurance co-payments considerably, hoping to give employees a reason to think twice about unnecessary medical visits, [tuna comment: LOL] tests, and procedures—make them have some “skin in the game,” as they say. Indeed, almost every category of costly medical care went down: doctor visits, emergency-room and hospital visits, drug prescriptions. Yet employee health costs continued to rise—climbing almost ten per cent each year. The company was baffled.
Gunn’s team took a look at the hot spots. The outliers, it turned out, were predominantly early retirees. Most had multiple chronic conditions—in particular, coronary-artery disease, asthma, and complex mental illness. One had badly worsening heart disease and diabetes, and medical bills over two years in excess of eighty thousand dollars. The man, dealing with higher co-payments on a fixed income, had cut back to filling only half his medication prescriptions for his high cholesterol and diabetes. He made few doctor visits. He avoided the E.R.—until a heart attack necessitated emergency surgery and left him disabled with chronic heart failure.
The higher co-payments had backfired, Gunn said. While medical costs for most employees flattened out, those for early retirees jumped seventeen per cent. The sickest patients became much more expensive because they put off care and prevention until it was too late.
it goes on but i don't want you to flood you guys to death =( please read it.
Very interesting. I don't see how gov't sponsored healthcare solves any of the problems outlined in that article. If anything, that just translates the system from private to public. Instead of insurance premiums and copays you'd just have taxes.
And to respond to the original topic: The healthcare bill was a bloated inefficient and possibly unconstitutional piece of garbage. It didn't accomplish anything that liberals actually would - all it did was increase risk for insurance companies, which would drive up costs, force small businesses to increase overhead massively, and tax healthy people for other people's problems.
It was a disaster and should never have been passed. Any intelligent person, democrat or republican, should see that.
I disagree strongly. Right now, people pay more for health insurance for less coverage than under a public plan, because insurance companies are notorious for keeping costs high but benefits low.
Until this year, when I entered college, my mom encouraged me to not go to the doctor unless something was very seriously wrong, because her copay was too much. Now, I go to university, and thanks to financial aid, I get free health insurance here at UC Berkeley. (normally student insurance is $1500 a year.) I went to the dentist for the first time in a couple years, and I will probably be going in for checkups more often, simply because I can afford to.
Japan and Europe have problems, sure; Europe, especially, too many old people and vacations and benefits and pensions. But their health insurance systems are not one of them.
I don't know how you can translate a sovereign bankruptcy inducing issue into not a problem. Long wait lines, doctor shortages, poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc. There's plenty of crap under the veneer.
False, again. Wait times in the UK and Germany are shorter than the wait times in the U.S. Both countries spend less money on healthcare than the U.S. (heck, EVERYONE does.) There is no "poor distribution of specialization, poor geographical distribution of doctors, etc." Their health standards are better than here, and citizens are not afraid of going to the doctor because of the risk of medical bankruptcy.
First of all, what a terrible mess. There is a too much to look when talking about "Europe and Japan. Their systems are different in details. It's also valuable to have forward looking perspective to see where the system will take you rather than just looking backwards.
Long wait times are worst in Canada. US is poor as well and relatively you might say UK and the such look good, but objectively it's terrible everywhere. Poor distribution of specialist and poor geographical distribution is a Japanese problem. There is some rural unavailability and a shortage of obstetrics. US has poor distribution as well with most the talent gravitating towards sports medicine, cosmetics, and radiology and away from the heavily regulated areas or most vulnerable to malpractice. US has the AMA regulatory guidelines to thank for constricting physician supply. You can probably point out more problems with the US system.
Anyways, saying that a foreign system is relative better or worse at this specific moment in time is neither here nor there in judging that system. I can complain about the US system, too. The real issue is whether the system is good and whether it is sustainable. Also when looking to replicate foreign systems, it is highly necessary to look at all factors involved. The German system is not just a tax on employees. Highly crucial to its "success" is enough regulatory power to depress or fix prices and nearly complete subsidization of education so they can have workers willing to accept the depressed prices.
I believe the ACA is going to be an unmitigated disaster precisely because it is missing some crucial pieces around the individual mandate to control costs and ensure supply. Those pieces like price setting regulator power and education would not have been palatable to Americans, so we got this half step which is worse than doing nothing at all. And even if we could copy the entire system, there is the question of whether it is prudent to adopt a system that is presently moving in the opposite directions and and showing chinks in sustainability.
I guess all these ACA proponents want to pigeon-hole my position as "objectively defending the status quo." I haven't done that at all. It's an alternative critique which also applies to all of the European systems. You folks can go on slamming the US health care system for how much it sucks.
On a side note, Professor Reinhardt, the author of the economix blog, is always worth reading because of interesting observations. It's true even if you don't agree with his conclusions.
First of all, the first link supports my assertion that standardized, universal healthcare is more efficient than the hodge podge system of private insurance companies we have here in the U.S. There is a LOT of government involvement in the healthcare industry in Germany, which is precisely why their system is so good. Here, deregulation and poor regulation results in a shitty system.
In Germany, the health insurance system is more than 75% government funded! Yes, private insurers exist in Germany, but 85% of German citizens are covered by the public health insurance plan. Germany has the oldest universal healthcare system in the world, at over 120 years old, and it is by far one of the most efficient.
So NO, Germany's healthcare system is NOT heavily privatized. Please stop deliberately spreading misinformation. Did you even read all of your own article?
Your second link is broken. It's also in Deutsch (I can read German, thank you very much) and it's a standard 404 error. I don't know what you were trying to accomplish there, but it's clear you probably have never even opened the link.
What the hell does education subsidy have to do with health insurance?
And again, you're blatantly wrong. How hard is it to understand these statistics?
Here's a graph of public vs private insurance coverage in Germany If you can't read German, the graph shows the percentage of publicly insured citizens on the left (Gesetzliche literally means "legal" ) and the bar on the right is the privately insured citizens.
And of course the American health system sucks. It sucks precisely because 50 million people in this country are uninsured, and countless more are insured but too afraid to go to the doctor for fear of financial woes. As a middle class citizen, I've felt this myself. Yet, in New Zealand, or hell, in India, my family never found this to be a problem.
A second court has stricken down the individual mandate portion of the health care bill. However, he has gone further than the Virgina judge and declared the entire health care bill unconstitutional because the individual mandate is inseparable from the rest of the bill.
I find it so funny that Republicans keep claiming the individual mandate strips people of their liberty, is unconstitutional, and is just, in general, bad. Here are some points that, for some reason, aren't made clear to the public by any media source:
1. The individual mandate, and the healthcare bill at large, is not unconstitutional. It's an income tax, and it's clear by the way it's worded. Basically, you pay the tax of $695 or 2.5% of your income, whichever is greater, if the minimum health plan costs less than 8% of your income, you refuse to buy insurance, and your earnings fall above the poverty line. The tax is DEFINED by your income. Those who are against this individual mandate are basically saying they're against federal income taxes. I say to them: take your fight to the 16th amendment to the Constitution, then. If you're so gung-ho about individual liberties and "what this country was founded upon," then go learn about the supreme law of the land.
2. This part of the bill keeps premiums down for those involved. Basically, it makes the system universal. Everyone's in the pool one way or another, so premiums are kept low. It prevents people who are healthy from saying, well, fuck the system, I'm gonna opt out, and then causing premiums for everyone else to skyrocket as a result because of the higher proportion of "unhealthy" people in the pool.
3. If you feel like you can risk not buying insurance, this is a very good option for you. If you pay the tax, you can opt to buy insurance later when you get ill. The best part about this is that, when you do choose to buy insurance (like when you get seriously ill or whatever) you cannot be denied coverage because of your preexisting condition. This is not possible currently; if you opt out of health insurance, get sick, and choose to buy health insurance, you'll be promptly denied.
It's been pointed out before that the Civil Rights Bill received similar flak to what the health insurance bill is receiving today. Some Americans just can't deal with big change, it seems.
On January 28 2011 23:22 MiraMax wrote: Take the Commonwealth Survey for example which indicates that all of the above countries have an equally or better performing health system at lower cost.
Yes this is a good source, shows direct comparisons between some of the major types of HC systems.
EPT
People with unhealthy habits.
![[image loading]](http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1130/fanfred.png)
