On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote: I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.
Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else.
The CBO estimated that one million workers would no longer get insurance coverage from their employers when the healthcare law was fully implemented. That estimate has now been revised as well. By 2016, the CBO now projects that 4 million fewer people will be getting their healthcare covered by their employer.
Furthermore, the overall number of currently uninsured people who would be covered by the new law has been reduced from 32 million to 30 million.
And, in an ironic twist, because the law provides many people with partial, rather than comprehensive coverage, the number of non-elderly legal residents forced to obtain supplemental insurance policies will rise from 82 percent in 2012, to 93 percent in 2022.
The CBO also projected an increase of $168 billion in Medicaid compared to its projection a year ago, coupled with $97 billion less spent on subsidies for people to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges, and $20 billion less on tax credits to small employers. This represents an overall increase of $51 billion over last year’s CBO estimates.
A survey taken last year by Towers Watson revealed that nearly ten percent of mid-sized or large employers expect to drop employee health coverage when the ACA is fully operational in 2014. And that was the optimistic survey. One taken by McKinsey & Company estimates that “[O]verall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014″ and that among employers far more familiar with the ACA, “this proportion increases to more than 50 percent.”
The ACA perversely exploits such incentive by making it cheaper for employers to pay fines than keep their workers on company healthcare plans. It also forces insurance companies to accept high-risk patients even as it forbids them to charge higher rates to those people for assuming that greater risk.
I could go on all day with these facts and statistics. Now please, tell me, how "the benefit to Americans is immense."
Don't forget the fact that the Obama administration has been handing out waivers to employers like candy.
On March 24 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote: I really hope for US's own sake that this doesn't get overturned. Even if it is arguably unconstitutional, the benefit to Americans is immense.
Here's an interesting comparision of the cost of medical procedures in America compared to everywhere else.
When the law was passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated it would cost $940 billion over a ten year period. The new estimate? $1.76 trillion.
O wow, we can already stop one assertion in to your list. The cost went up because they analyzed 2012-2022, which includes more years with the law being in place, not 2010-2020 (2019? that would make it a 10 vs 11 year comparison) like they did before. 2010-2020\19 included more years of major parts of the bill unimplemented.
This talking point also completely ignores the revenue side; Obamacare doesn't cost anything over the 2012-2022 period because it has spending cuts and tax increases that the CBO found to offset the $1.76 trillion in outlays. Nothing has changed about that.
"Hey look, if I compare two different ten year periods and ignore the revenue and only include the spending, I can declare Obamacare costs a lot more than before!"
So the books were cooked by Obama to make the law look less costly in the first place? Why would they do a 10 year estimate of the costs from 2010-2019 if most of the major parts of the bill don't go into effect until 2014? You can't use one estimate that looks good for your side and then say the second estimate is biased because it's more accurate to the real costs. The FIRST estimate was the biased one.
On March 24 2012 11:23 Housemd wrote: I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read.
I think you are confused about what socialism actually means...
Take a look at DMV, or social security, or welfare, or public housing, or public schools, or the military, or the national debt, and you will begin to realize why Americans do not want more government control of the economy.
Then look at history. Compare North Korea to South. Compare West Berlin to East. Compare the USSR superpower to the USA. Compare old Communist China with Reforming China. Pure socialism always leads to totalitarianism and economic collapse, while the richest and most free nations have historically been capitalistic. Europe is capitalist with high redistribution, which is why they are still mostly economically successful, apart from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
What's the point in bringing up total socialism? I don't understand why the knee jerk answer to a "Well here's how we've done it in Europe for 100 years and it's worked out great for us so far" leads to "NO!!!!! SOCIALISM!!!! CANNOT COMPUTE!!!!" Giving people a fair chance at life isn't bad. It's irrelevant what labels you want to put on it. Health care and schools are arguably the most important institutions in an average human beings life. That's why it's worth spending tax money on.
The person I was responding to didn't understand why Americans fear socialism, and historical socialism is the reason why. I explained that Europe doesn't qualify as this socialism.
It's the absolute standard of living which is more important than the relative equality, and strong capitalism has done far more to improve that standard of living than any other system. There is nothing wrong about providing things like education, so long as it is done in a sensible manner. The American public school system is a joke, and it's 100% public financed. It is one thing for government to subsidize a capitalist sector to help the poor, and another for government bureaucrats to completely manage it. The Netherlands is a good example. 70% of their students attend schools which are publicly financed, but privately run, and they rank top 3 in the world PISA educational rankings.
Obamacare is an example of good intentions with horrible implementation.
On March 24 2012 11:23 Housemd wrote: I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read.
I think you are confused about what socialism actually means...
Take a look at DMV, or social security, or welfare, or public housing, or public schools, or the military, or the national debt, and you will begin to realize why Americans do not want more government control of the economy.
Then look at history. Compare North Korea to South. Compare West Berlin to East. Compare the USSR superpower to the USA. Compare old Communist China with Reforming China. Pure socialism always leads to totalitarianism and economic collapse, while the richest and most free nations have historically been capitalistic. Europe is capitalist with high redistribution, which is why they are still mostly economically successful, apart from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
What's the point in bringing up total socialism? I don't understand why the knee jerk answer to a "Well here's how we've done it in Europe for 100 years and it's worked out great for us so far" leads to "NO!!!!! SOCIALISM!!!! CANNOT COMPUTE!!!!" Giving people a fair chance at life isn't bad. It's irrelevant what labels you want to put on it. Health care and schools are arguably the most important institutions in an average human beings life. That's why it's worth spending tax money on.
The person I was responding to didn't understand why Americans fear socialism, and historical socialism is the reason why. I explained that Europe doesn't qualify as this socialism.
It's the absolute standard of living which is more important than the relative equality, and strong capitalism has done far more to improve that standard of living than any other system. There is nothing wrong about providing things like education, so long as it is done in a sensible manner. The American public school system is a joke, and it's 100% public financed. It is one thing for government to subsidize a capitalist sector to help the poor, and another for government bureaucrats to completely manage it. The Netherlands is a good example. 70% of their students attend schools which are publicly financed, but privately run, and they rank top 3 in the world PISA educational rankings.
Obamacare is an example of good intentions with horrible implementation.
Thank you for your response. I was wondering...in Sweden don't they have a mixture of both? And I mean Sweden is a great nation health care wise, 100x better than the U.S. Why not switch to that?
On March 24 2012 11:23 Housemd wrote: I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read.
I think you are confused about what socialism actually means...
Take a look at DMV, or social security, or welfare, or public housing, or public schools, or the military, or the national debt, and you will begin to realize why Americans do not want more government control of the economy.
Then look at history. Compare North Korea to South. Compare West Berlin to East. Compare the USSR superpower to the USA. Compare old Communist China with Reforming China. Pure socialism always leads to totalitarianism and economic collapse, while the richest and most free nations have historically been capitalistic. Europe is capitalist with high redistribution, which is why they are still mostly economically successful, apart from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
What's the point in bringing up total socialism? I don't understand why the knee jerk answer to a "Well here's how we've done it in Europe for 100 years and it's worked out great for us so far" leads to "NO!!!!! SOCIALISM!!!! CANNOT COMPUTE!!!!" Giving people a fair chance at life isn't bad. It's irrelevant what labels you want to put on it. Health care and schools are arguably the most important institutions in an average human beings life. That's why it's worth spending tax money on.
The person I was responding to didn't understand why Americans fear socialism, and historical socialism is the reason why. I explained that Europe doesn't qualify as this socialism.
It's the absolute standard of living which is more important than the relative equality, and strong capitalism has done far more to improve that standard of living than any other system. There is nothing wrong about providing things like education, so long as it is done in a sensible manner. The American public school system is a joke, and it's 100% public financed. It is one thing for government to subsidize a capitalist sector to help the poor, and another for government bureaucrats to completely manage it. The Netherlands is a good example. 70% of their students attend schools which are publicly financed, but privately run, and they rank top 3 in the world PISA educational rankings.
Obamacare is an example of good intentions with horrible implementation.
Thank you for your response. I was wondering...in Sweden don't they have a mixture of both? And I mean Sweden is a great nation health care wise, 100x better than the U.S. Why not switch to that?
Well, I don't really wanna get derailed into a debate about Sweden's system. The point I am trying to make is that this Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is nothing like Sweden's system, the two have nothing to do with each other. I'm trying to explain to people that the socialized system they believe in has nothing to do with this law. Sweden would absolutely despise Obamacare.
On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Medicare for every U.S citizen.
Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world.
How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me
Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet.
Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring.
Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole.
So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray!
The national debt is around $15 trillion.
I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.
The government doesn't today owe around 130 trillion dollars. That's the future total of all obligations when they come due. Today's value of all that debt is about 50-70 trillion dollars.
You are incredibly wrong. You obviously cant read. So let us review.
The national debt is around $15 trillion.
I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.
You're website verifies just that. "US National Debt 15 trillion, 576 billion, 227 million and climbing. Whereas I said "The National debt is around $15 trillion", which in turn I am right.
Please learn how to read before you try and make someone else look like a fool when in turn you obviously make yourself do just that.
On March 24 2012 11:23 Housemd wrote: I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read.
I think you are confused about what socialism actually means...
Take a look at DMV, or social security, or welfare, or public housing, or public schools, or the military, or the national debt, and you will begin to realize why Americans do not want more government control of the economy.
Then look at history. Compare North Korea to South. Compare West Berlin to East. Compare the USSR superpower to the USA. Compare old Communist China with Reforming China. Pure socialism always leads to totalitarianism and economic collapse, while the richest and most free nations have historically been capitalistic. Europe is capitalist with high redistribution, which is why they are still mostly economically successful, apart from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
What's the point in bringing up total socialism? I don't understand why the knee jerk answer to a "Well here's how we've done it in Europe for 100 years and it's worked out great for us so far" leads to "NO!!!!! SOCIALISM!!!! CANNOT COMPUTE!!!!" Giving people a fair chance at life isn't bad. It's irrelevant what labels you want to put on it. Health care and schools are arguably the most important institutions in an average human beings life. That's why it's worth spending tax money on.
The person I was responding to didn't understand why Americans fear socialism, and historical socialism is the reason why. I explained that Europe doesn't qualify as this socialism.
It's the absolute standard of living which is more important than the relative equality, and strong capitalism has done far more to improve that standard of living than any other system. There is nothing wrong about providing things like education, so long as it is done in a sensible manner. The American public school system is a joke, and it's 100% public financed. It is one thing for government to subsidize a capitalist sector to help the poor, and another for government bureaucrats to completely manage it. The Netherlands is a good example. 70% of their students attend schools which are publicly financed, but privately run, and they rank top 3 in the world PISA educational rankings.
Obamacare is an example of good intentions with horrible implementation.
Thank you for your response. I was wondering...in Sweden don't they have a mixture of both? And I mean Sweden is a great nation health care wise, 100x better than the U.S. Why not switch to that?
Well, I don't really wanna get derailed into a debate about Sweden's system. The point I am trying to make is that this Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is nothing like Sweden's system, the two have nothing to do with each other. I'm trying to explain to people that the socialized system they believe in has nothing to do with this law. Sweden would absolutely despise Obamacare.
You've been extremely helpful. Btw, do you support Obamacare. If not, why?
Personally, I think its a huge step forward considering the shit the Health Care system in the United States was during Bush's time. It's a stepping stone and a temporary one. However, eventually we're going to need to revolutionize our healthcare and make it accessible to mostly everyone in the United States.
mandatory immunizations huh... would be interesting to see the pharm company that gets the order for making all those injections put the cat fecal mind control parasite in its injections to create a more frightened populace. Kinda like how last night I watched a news coverage about US 'pharm resalers' selling pills to themselves in order to drive up prices for cancer patients and hospitals buying the medication, in all likelihood causing many unaffordable circumstances where people had to simply die.
On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Medicare for every U.S citizen.
Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world.
How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me
Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet.
Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring.
Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole.
So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray!
The national debt is around $15 trillion.
I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.
The government doesn't today owe around 130 trillion dollars. That's the future total of all obligations when they come due. Today's value of all that debt is about 50-70 trillion dollars.
You are incredibly wrong. You obviously cant read. So let us review.
The national debt is around $15 trillion.
I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.
You're website verifies just that. "US National Debt 15 trillion, 576 billion, 227 million and climbing. Whereas I said "The National debt is around $15 trillion", which in turn I am right.
Please learn how to read before you try and make someone else look like a fool when in turn you obviously make yourself do just that.
I already explained this to you. Did you not see my post?
It's all about labeling. Unfunded liabilities are not labeled as debt by US accounting, they are labeled "transfer payments." The current unfunded liability of social security, medicare, and prescription drug liability, is well over $100 trillion. These numbers do represent future costs which must be paid, but they are not defined as national debt.
According to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) which the US requires of every company or business, unfunded liabilities must be accounted as debt. But the US govt. decides to have a separate standard for their own accounting, because it benefits them.
Health care reform is the only reason my girlfriend and I have insurance through each of our parents. We've saved a huge amount of money and have a lot of piece of mind. Millions are in the same situation.
On March 24 2012 11:23 Housemd wrote: I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read.
I think you are confused about what socialism actually means...
Take a look at DMV, or social security, or welfare, or public housing, or public schools, or the military, or the national debt, and you will begin to realize why Americans do not want more government control of the economy.
Then look at history. Compare North Korea to South. Compare West Berlin to East. Compare the USSR superpower to the USA. Compare old Communist China with Reforming China. Pure socialism always leads to totalitarianism and economic collapse, while the richest and most free nations have historically been capitalistic. Europe is capitalist with high redistribution, which is why they are still mostly economically successful, apart from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
What's the point in bringing up total socialism? I don't understand why the knee jerk answer to a "Well here's how we've done it in Europe for 100 years and it's worked out great for us so far" leads to "NO!!!!! SOCIALISM!!!! CANNOT COMPUTE!!!!" Giving people a fair chance at life isn't bad. It's irrelevant what labels you want to put on it. Health care and schools are arguably the most important institutions in an average human beings life. That's why it's worth spending tax money on.
The person I was responding to didn't understand why Americans fear socialism, and historical socialism is the reason why. I explained that Europe doesn't qualify as this socialism.
It's the absolute standard of living which is more important than the relative equality, and strong capitalism has done far more to improve that standard of living than any other system. There is nothing wrong about providing things like education, so long as it is done in a sensible manner. The American public school system is a joke, and it's 100% public financed. It is one thing for government to subsidize a capitalist sector to help the poor, and another for government bureaucrats to completely manage it. The Netherlands is a good example. 70% of their students attend schools which are publicly financed, but privately run, and they rank top 3 in the world PISA educational rankings.
Obamacare is an example of good intentions with horrible implementation.
Thank you for your response. I was wondering...in Sweden don't they have a mixture of both? And I mean Sweden is a great nation health care wise, 100x better than the U.S. Why not switch to that?
Well, I don't really wanna get derailed into a debate about Sweden's system. The point I am trying to make is that this Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is nothing like Sweden's system, the two have nothing to do with each other. I'm trying to explain to people that the socialized system they believe in has nothing to do with this law. Sweden would absolutely despise Obamacare.
To get Sweden's healthcare, you need to pay more tax , not that much if you cut off some of the military costs.
On March 24 2012 11:23 Housemd wrote: I haven't read much into this but I'm going to share my views so that if there wrong...I can fix them.
I like Obamacare but after reading the OP, there is no doubt that it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional beyond belief but it helps the general good of society and reduces the federal debt which is definitely good. I think it should be passed.
However, the thing that gets me is that why are Americans so opposed to socialism? We already has forms of socialism in our country and in no way are they bad...they are necessary to ensure that the common people are served and meet a nice standard of living. In capitalism, certain companies can just run away with costs and cause the majority of the population to have an inequal distribution of income.
Just my 2 cents. I like socialism better btw from what I read.
I think you are confused about what socialism actually means...
Take a look at DMV, or social security, or welfare, or public housing, or public schools, or the military, or the national debt, and you will begin to realize why Americans do not want more government control of the economy.
Then look at history. Compare North Korea to South. Compare West Berlin to East. Compare the USSR superpower to the USA. Compare old Communist China with Reforming China. Pure socialism always leads to totalitarianism and economic collapse, while the richest and most free nations have historically been capitalistic. Europe is capitalist with high redistribution, which is why they are still mostly economically successful, apart from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
What's the point in bringing up total socialism? I don't understand why the knee jerk answer to a "Well here's how we've done it in Europe for 100 years and it's worked out great for us so far" leads to "NO!!!!! SOCIALISM!!!! CANNOT COMPUTE!!!!" Giving people a fair chance at life isn't bad. It's irrelevant what labels you want to put on it. Health care and schools are arguably the most important institutions in an average human beings life. That's why it's worth spending tax money on.
The person I was responding to didn't understand why Americans fear socialism, and historical socialism is the reason why. I explained that Europe doesn't qualify as this socialism.
It's the absolute standard of living which is more important than the relative equality, and strong capitalism has done far more to improve that standard of living than any other system. There is nothing wrong about providing things like education, so long as it is done in a sensible manner. The American public school system is a joke, and it's 100% public financed. It is one thing for government to subsidize a capitalist sector to help the poor, and another for government bureaucrats to completely manage it. The Netherlands is a good example. 70% of their students attend schools which are publicly financed, but privately run, and they rank top 3 in the world PISA educational rankings.
Obamacare is an example of good intentions with horrible implementation.
Thank you for your response. I was wondering...in Sweden don't they have a mixture of both? And I mean Sweden is a great nation health care wise, 100x better than the U.S. Why not switch to that?
Well, I don't really wanna get derailed into a debate about Sweden's system. The point I am trying to make is that this Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is nothing like Sweden's system, the two have nothing to do with each other. I'm trying to explain to people that the socialized system they believe in has nothing to do with this law. Sweden would absolutely despise Obamacare.
You've been extremely helpful. Btw, do you support Obamacare. If not, why?
Personally, I think its a huge step forward considering the shit the Health Care system in the United States was during Bush's time. It's a stepping stone and a temporary one. However, eventually we're going to need to revolutionize our healthcare and make it accessible to mostly everyone in the United States.
I am opposed to Obamacare, but explaining all the reason why would take a very long time. I'm gonna try to simplify things a bit here...
One thing that really can open people's eye's are the cases of medical tourism. Medical tourism means people flying out of the United States to receive surgery in other nations. One popular destination is India. A procedure which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US, which can completely bankrupt a person, is very affordable in a place like India. If you are interested in this subject, I recommend you watch the Vanguard episode on medical tourism.
Now why is it so much cheaper in other nations for the same exact procedure? It can't be because those nations are applying socialist policies to foreign citizens, because they would go broke under such a policy. So why is it so cheaper?
There are countless reasons. Here are a few:
1) Lawsuits. There are tons of malpractice lawsuits which drive up the cost of health care. Not only do the lawsuits themselves cost the medical industry millions, but doctors get pressure into ordering unnecessary testing or care because they fear liability.
2) Licensing standards. Do you have any idea the amount of time and debt it takes to reach the educational standards necessary to practice medicine in the US? Obviously some basic standards are necessary, but there are immense barriers to entry into the market which artificially raise doctors wages and costs, and reduce the supply of medical providers. Licensing standards apply to more than just the doctors themselves.... the care, the equipment, the drugs, and on and on... All of this raises costs greatly.
3) Third party accountability. Insurance companies cover all the costs. The incentive of consumers is to get more medical care than necessary, when insurance covers 99% of the costs. There is very little incentive to ration their own care. Same thing goes for the providers. Doctors have immense incentive to order unnecessary tests, prescribe unnecessary drugs, bill unnecessary amounts for care, because the insurance company is required to cover the costs. It even goes beyond third party accountability, into fourth party accountability, because most people receive their medical insurance through their employer. The less that the suppliers or consumers are responsible for the actual costs of the service, the higher the costs will rise.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. While insurance companies and the capitalist system are an easy scapegoat, the biggest reasons health costs keep skyrocketing are government induced. There are major reforms which can be undertaken to significantly reduce the cost of medical care and to increase insurance coverage which do not require additional legislation of this sort.
Even if we reject the capitalist model and decide a socialized system is superior, then we ought to have a fully socialized system. Obamacare is some sort of horrible hybrid, which attempts to take the worst of each system. It will do more to increase medical costs, it will do more to decrease insurance coverage, it will do more to hurt the American medical system.... And I think all of this is by design. They don't believe they can pass true socialized medicine, so they are trying to completely break the capitalist model so that people don't have a choice. This is a horrible way of introducing a European model. People should be convinced of the benefits of the system so they embrace it, instead of being forced to eventually accept it by having the alternatives destroyed.
On March 24 2012 13:28 liberal wrote: I am opposed to Obamacare, but explaining all the reason why would take a very long time. I'm gonna try to simplify things a bit here...
One thing that really can open people's eye's are the cases of medical tourism. Medical tourism means people flying out of the United States to receive surgery in other nations. One popular destination is India. A procedure which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US, which can completely bankrupt a person, is very affordable in a place like India. If you are interested in this subject, I recommend you watch the Vanguard episode on medical tourism.
Now why is it so much cheaper in other nations for the same exact procedure? It can't be because those nations are applying socialist policies to foreign citizens, because they would go broke under such a policy. So why is it so cheaper?
There are countless reasons. Here are a few:
1) Lawsuits. There are tons of malpractice lawsuits which drive up the cost of health care. Not only do the lawsuits themselves cost the medical industry millions, but doctors get pressure into ordering unnecessary testing or care because they fear liability.
2) Licensing standards. Do you have any idea the amount of time and debt it takes to reach the educational standards necessary to practice medicine in the US? Obviously some basic standards are necessary, but there are immense barriers to entry into the market which artificially raise doctors wages and costs, and reduce the supply of medical providers. Licensing standards apply to more than just the doctors themselves.... the care, the equipment, the drugs, and on and on... All of this raises costs greatly.
3) Third party accountability. Insurance companies cover all the costs. The incentive of consumers is to get more medical care than necessary, when insurance covers 99% of the costs. There is very little incentive to ration their own care. Same thing goes for the providers. Doctors have immense incentive to order unnecessary tests, prescribe unnecessary drugs, bill unnecessary amounts for care, because the insurance company is required to cover the costs. It even goes beyond third party accountability, into fourth party accountability, because most people receive their medical insurance through their employer. The less that the suppliers or consumers are responsible for the actual costs of the service, the higher the costs will rise.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. While insurance companies and the capitalist system are an easy scapegoat, the biggest reasons health costs keep skyrocketing are government induced. There are major reforms which can be undertaken to significantly reduce the cost of medical care and to increase insurance coverage which do not require additional legislation of this sort.
Even if we reject the capitalist model and decide a socialized system is superior, then we ought to have a fully socialized system. Obamacare is some sort of horrible hybrid, which attempts to take the worst of each system. It will do more to increase medical costs, it will do more to decrease insurance coverage, it will do more to hurt the American medical system.... And I think all of this is by design. They don't believe they can pass true socialized medicine, so they are trying to completely break the capitalist model so that people don't have a choice. This is a horrible way of introducing a European model. People should be convinced of the benefits of the system so they embrace it, instead of being forced to eventually accept it by having the alternatives destroyed.
The only point that actually holds up to scrutiny is the 2nd one. Malpractice accounts for a very small amount of costs in the overall system, both in terms of insurance and lawsuits. As for insurance, if you look at the price that individuals pay compared to insurance and government programs and their policy holders, you'll notice a HUGE increase for the individual providing for his or her self. The reason for this is bargaining power. The individual doesn't have the vast resources of a collective provider to negotiate prices and get the optimal care they need.
The 2nd point is true for many more reasons than just educational and training requirements. The U.S. has its own procedures for regulating medication and treatments which add a great deal of costs on the R&D process. There is always a demand for an incremental advantage over a competitor, and each upgrade costs a TON of money. While doctors pay a lot and get paid a lot, much of the profit ends up in the hands of high tech equipment and drug manufacturers, and rightfully so since each new product is such a huge gamble. Every so often they create an MRI machine or medication that nobody wants, and they eat a HUGE chunk of R&D investment and regulatory costs, because you have to get it certified before you can even market it.
On March 24 2012 14:01 fox77 wrote: I don't understand how Canada can have free health care?
Basically no one here is opposed to health care. Pretty much everyone agrees it should be a fundamental right, and as such very few people are opposed to the idea. It's much easier to implement an effective institution without partisan bickering ruining the whole thing.
I oppose obamacare or any federal health care system. Mainly because it is unconstitutional.
Quick, but important constitutional lesson: To start off the Constitution states that in order for the federal government to have a power it must be given that power in the Constitution. This is called the enumerated powers doctrine. The enumerated powers of the Constitution are laid out in Article I Section 8. There are 18 powers (somewhat summarized):
1) Collect taxes, pay debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. 2) Borrow money. (We sadly use this one a lot today) 3) Regulate commerce with other nations and among the states. 4) Establish an uniform rule of naturalization. 5) Coin money and regulate the value. 6) Punish counterfeiting. 7) Establish post offices. 8) Promote the progress of science and useful arts. Also help inventors and authors secure right over their works. (Patients) 9) Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court. 10) Punish crimes on the high Seas. 11) Declare War. 12) Raise and support Armies. 13) Maintaining of a Navy. 14) Rules for land and naval forces. 15) Calling forth of a Militia. 16) (More Militia stuff) 17) Ruling over DC. 18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.
So there are all the things that the federal government can do. I should quickly mention that Article I section 9 has more RESTRICTIONS of what the government can't do. Also the bill of rights RESTRICTS the federal government more. I really want to emphasize (especially to the Americans) that the founding fathers wrote a Constitution to restrict what the federal government can do so that it doesn't becoming to powerful and take away our rights or freedoms.
Anyways as you can see no where in the Constitution does it allow for anything like federal health care.
Another reason that obamacare is unconstitutional is the individual mandate. The individual mandate forces people to buy health insurance from a private health insurance company. Where in the Constitution is that allowed?? That would be the same as forcing every American to buy a new car every year. What a joke!! Judges have actually said this is constitutional! These are judges who have sworn to protect the Constitution, but are really just pissing on it.
I'll leave you with some quotes that have popped into my head while writing this.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -George Bernard Shaw
"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -James Madison
And one last one from my favorite historical figure:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson
EPT
, not that much if you cut off some of the military costs.
