|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/23/2009 12:25:31 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
Sigh, this is why Current Events irritates me.
I never said anything about the goverment.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/23/2009 2:30:34 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6723
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano23
Ah, Tac, we get denied because we have babies that are too large, kids who are too skinny, happened to get raped and contract an illness (from the attacker), have acne... You have to play a game to get insurance and keep it. It seems like most of the time, the game is to not be born to begin with. IMO, they have too much power, and the business end has taken over. I can't blame a business for covering their behinds, but that means that people die and don't have healthcare-- so they can cover their behinds.
And do you not seriously think that the problem will be ten fold when the government runs all of healthcare and not just part?
Look at what the Obamacrew is already talking about in the area of lifestyle and taxing personal preferences.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/23/2009 3:30:06 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2077
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
I didn't say anything about Obama.
I didn't say anything about the government.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/23/2009 7:01:49 PM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 543
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano23
Sigh, this is why Current Events irritates me.
I never said anything about the goverment.
My apologies. However, the current debate over this issue, offers no other solutions. It's either "The system is broken, insurance companies are greedy, and we must let Nancy Pelosi handle our health care", or nothing. There are problems, for sure, but, as I think I posted here before, you don't tear down your house when you have a leaky faucet, so why do these people want to completely tear down the entire industry, in the interest of so-called "reform"?
_____________________________
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/26/2009 3:15:00 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 470
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
As this continues to mutate... I've recently read a few assertions that the "current plan" (whatever it is) would not raise the deficit by one dime. I guess I'd also hear the assertion that no one making less than the 95th percentile of US income would see a tax hike. Then I've seen estimates of costs approaching a billion dollars a decade.
Can anyone shed some light? Either these ideas cost something or not. Assuming there is a cost it either comes from more taxes or more borrowing, I see no other place. I can only guess that somehow someone came up with a calculation that shows that spending $$'s will save $$'s and the savings will outweigh the expense. I'd like to understand what's behind that assumption.
In the countries that have government healthcare the tax rates are what I can only describe as confiscation - I see no other way for this to work. My guess is that to ease the shock (of more tax) the government will borrow to get the plan going. I wish the current crop of politicians (and I mean both parties here and the evidence of the last 3 administrations... not just the current one) had demonstrated that they can make prudent use of debt and can responsibly administer large public programs. But they have NOT. They seem intoxicated by easy borrowing against the future with no restraint in sight.
A last question... how can private industry "compete" against a "public option" that has the ability to operate indefinitely at a net loss? Real companies go bankrupt, the government just prints more money...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/27/2009 12:16:06 PM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 543
Status: offline
|
quote:
I wish the current crop of politicians (and I mean both parties here and the evidence of the last 3 administrations... not just the current one) had demonstrated that they can make prudent use of debt and can responsibly administer large public programs. But they have NOT. They seem intoxicated by easy borrowing against the future with no restraint in sight.
When Obama says, that we will reduce cost of HC, by cutting out waste and fraud, I must laugh: These guys are the Pittsburgh Steelers, of waste, and fraud! The world champs! One needs only to look at Charley Rangel, to see how they will deal with waste, and fraud.
PJ O'Roarke, was right, when he said giving money and power to the govt., was like giving whiskey, and car keys to teenage boys.
_____________________________
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/28/2009 1:07:50 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: online
|
Perhaps a "whistleblower" will add some insight to the discussion:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/potter_testimony.html
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/29/2009 11:35:51 AM
|
|
|
gcsmithjr
Posts: 532
Joined: 11/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
As this continues to mutate... I've recently read a few assertions that the "current plan" (whatever it is) would not raise the deficit by one dime. I guess I'd also hear the assertion that no one making less than the 95th percentile of US income would see a tax hike. Then I've seen estimates of costs approaching a billion dollars a decade.
Can anyone shed some light? Either these ideas cost something or not. Assuming there is a cost it either comes from more taxes or more borrowing, I see no other place. I can only guess that somehow someone came up with a calculation that shows that spending $$'s will save $$'s and the savings will outweigh the expense. I'd like to understand what's behind that assumption.
In the countries that have government healthcare the tax rates are what I can only describe as confiscation - I see no other way for this to work. My guess is that to ease the shock (of more tax) the government will borrow to get the plan going. I wish the current crop of politicians (and I mean both parties here and the evidence of the last 3 administrations... not just the current one) had demonstrated that they can make prudent use of debt and can responsibly administer large public programs. But they have NOT. They seem intoxicated by easy borrowing against the future with no restraint in sight.
A last question... how can private industry "compete" against a "public option" that has the ability to operate indefinitely at a net loss? Real companies go bankrupt, the government just prints more money...
Based on a report published earlier this week, the current U.S. systems wastes between $505 BILLION and $850 BILLION annually on things ranging from unnecessary care ($200 - $300 Billion) to administrative inefficiency ($100 - $150 Billion).
It's not that hard to see how much of the proposed reform could be paid for by improving the current system, particularly when there are obvious gaps like the fact that "The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada"
Here's a link to the article: Reuters - U.S. Healthcare Wastes $850 Billion a Year
As for private industry competing with a public option, there are any number of industries where private industry has demonstrated the ability to effectively compete with government-mandated, government supported alternatives. The government requires that the USPS deliver mail to every residence in the U.S. 6 days a week but that didn't stop UPS and FedEx from succeeding (in a situation where the government had a monopoly on delivery before the private companies even existed).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/29/2009 2:08:51 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 470
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gcsmithjr
Based on a report published earlier this week, the current U.S. systems wastes between $505 BILLION and $850 BILLION annually on things ranging from unnecessary care ($200 - $300 Billion) to administrative inefficiency ($100 - $150 Billion).
It's not that hard to see how much of the proposed reform could be paid for by improving the current system...
As for private industry competing with a public option, there are any number of industries where private industry has demonstrated the ability to effectively compete with government-mandated, government supported alternatives. The government requires that the USPS deliver mail to every residence in the U.S. 6 days a week but that didn't stop UPS and FedEx...
I can see where the current system has some gross inefficiency... I am not convinced that creating government healthcare and new entitlements will do anything about that...?
On a quick google I think I confirmed my understanding that the USPS gets NO TAXPAYER subsidy and has been that way since the early 80's. FEDEX and UPS began to grow AFTER the government option was put on an equal footing. If someone wants to set up government healthcare with no tax dollars, I'm all for that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 10/30/2009 6:05:23 AM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 543
Status: offline
|
quote:
Based on a report published earlier this week, the current U.S. systems wastes between $505 BILLION and $850 BILLION annually on things ranging from unnecessary care ($200 - $300 Billion) to administrative inefficiency ($100 - $150 Billion).
The "unnecessary care" will continue, as long as their is no tort reform. If something goes wrong, and a ambulance chaser sees that an x-ray(whether it does any good or not), etc., was skipped... CHA CHING!!!!!
The way our President framed it, was quite different; They were neglecting paitents, in order to get more costly procedures(of course, neglecting to mention, that, the same doctor does not preform the tonsillectomy, or the amputation- how conveinent for him).
_____________________________
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Healthcare Reform - 11/3/2009 1:06:51 AM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 842
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: online
|
WSJ has a chart outlining the different plans being proposed
LINK
Notice the difference in approach. Dems want to mandate everyone have coverage (unconstitutional) and pay for it by gutting the Meds and raising taxes. The GOP plan has freedom of choice, tax credits and eliminating fraud instead of raising taxes and mandates. This chart doesn't include making insurance more competitive by allowing portability and inter-state competition, which is a great idea.
It shows the difference in approach of the two parties. Big-government, big-spending socialistic nanny-state (bordering on authoritarian) vs. free market, fiscal responsibility, individual choice/liberty and personal responsibility.
_____________________________
Any of this gettin' through to you, son?
"I prefer clarity to agreement" - Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
The Worst Bill Ever - 11/3/2009 1:12:18 AM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 842
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: online
|
WSJ again on what Pelosi is trying to ram down our throats.
The Worst Bill Ever
quote:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.
Great conclusion (my bolding of a great line)
quote:
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
_____________________________
Any of this gettin' through to you, son?
"I prefer clarity to agreement" - Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/5/2009 9:17:55 AM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 5740
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
LINK
quote:
WASHINGTON - You're afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down.
Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems.
Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.
quote:
If the Democrats' risk pool starts running out of money, the government may have to start a waiting list, raise premiums or take other unpopular measures. Congress could be asked for a bailout.
The Pelosi/Obama democrats do not have a healthcare bill, they have
a tax and spend bill.......................
It's all about CONTROL.
.
< Message edited by Lapidoth -- 11/5/2009 9:30:58 AM >
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/15/2009 12:37:37 PM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 543
Status: offline
|
I think the real reason The President wants to buy a prison, is to detain those, who won't buy health care.
_____________________________
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/16/2009 11:21:22 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 470
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: its_GO_time
I think the real reason The President wants to buy a prison, is to detain those, who won't buy health care.
Does anyone know what the current bill and/or any likely amendments really say on this point? As I understand the logic, universal healthcare become less expensive PER PERSON if more young and healthy people participate. They basically pay into the system while using little or no service. This actually is sound logic - but only seems to apply to a single-payer system?
So to my read of this - the "public option" is a trojan horse being set up as the eventual single-payer and the mandatory participation aspect (again... does anyone know how the bill really reads on this?) would pave the way to single payer.
It would be interesting to see how this is intended to work out. With mandatory car insurance you can stop driving if you can't afford it. With mandatory retirement insurance half the cost is hidden as a tax on employment (can you imagine such a job killing idea???? hey let's tax employers for the right to hire!!!) and the other half is a tax on income. So basically with no income you can opt out of Social Security for a while, then opt in again later (and be covered in the end if you earn enough points in your lifetime).
How do they plan to implement mandatory healthcare again? I'm curious.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/16/2009 11:24:28 AM
|
|
|
AmandaRadarRanger
Posts: 154
Joined: 11/10/2009
Status: offline
|
The worst bill ever? Even worse than the fugitive slave act?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/16/2009 1:41:32 PM
|
|
|
its_GO_time
Posts: 543
Status: offline
|
quote:
Y'know, if they can really save $500 billion or more by eliminating waste and fraud, why don't they start by doing just that?
The same folks who won't strip Charley Rangel of his chairmanship, while he's investigated for tax fraud, and ethics violations, will eliminate waste and fraud? Don't hold your breath. And who is the originator of waste, fraud? The very same people. You have a fox, hen house thing going on here.
_____________________________
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/16/2009 8:29:20 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 688
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
As I understand the logic, universal healthcare become less expensive PER PERSON if more young and healthy people participate. They basically pay into the system while using little or no service. This actually is sound logic - but only seems to apply to a single-payer system? It doesn't just apply to a single payer system, it applies to any health insurance -- or insurance system in general. The "group" is what makes is possible - generally - to keep premiums affordable. No insurance plan can work properly if you don't have people paying in that aren't routinely making claims, whether it's auto, home, life, or health makes no difference at all. If you don't get young relatively healthy people into whatever system you have, it won't work.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/21/2009 7:05:49 AM
|
|
|
humbleinspirit
Posts: 16638
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Just Outside of Boston
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LabGuy
Y'know, if they can really save $500 billion or more by eliminating waste and fraud, why don't they start by doing just that? That would be a bill everyone could get behind. Unless/until they do that first, the budget numbers being tossed around are little more than wishful thinking and hand-waving.
-Robb
Now that would be too simple and put a real lot of bureaucrats out of work also.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/21/2009 10:02:21 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 470
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady
quote:
As I understand the logic, universal healthcare become less expensive PER PERSON if more young and healthy people participate. They basically pay into the system while using little or no service. This actually is sound logic - but only seems to apply to a single-payer system? It doesn't just apply to a single payer system, it applies to any health insurance -- or insurance system in general. The "group" is what makes is possible
OK, yes pooled risk is what makes insurance work. Let me re-phrase.
Compulsory insurance would be a way to reduce costs in a single payer system but the logic in a multi-payer system is not so clear. The young "invincibles" would likely find the cheapest possible plan while those with pre-existing conditions (and a good idea of what service they need) will choose a plan with more services (assuming it's within affordability). If these end up to be different payers the mandate accomplishes nothing to reduce cost. It simply hands one payer profits.
Now... I don't think the government "option" is intended to be just one of many competitors. I'm speculating here... but it seems that the law would be set up so the new "insurance conscripts" end up in the government plan and subsidize the others there. Once that plan gets enough participants it will cease to be an "option" and just become "the system".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Worst Bill Ever - 11/21/2009 10:11:43 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 470
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
...and btw - before someone asserts that "a market" would exist and the government run option would just operate in it. Let me point out that the current system has some pretty wacky things happening.
My father worked for a very large employer who promised him retiree health care, full ride, wonderful thing. He put in his 35 years and retired. Health care costs rose. He was notified that dependents (eg my mother) are now dropped from the benefit... but he is allowed to maintain her insurance through the retiree plan if he pays half the cost. Sounds like a good offer under the circumstances? Well... he went on the open market and bought the SAME insurance from the SAME carrier for LESS than what "half of our cost" was supposed to be.
Wacky and rigged.
...so, I'm no fan of the current system for sure. But I cannot support the idea of solving it with a new government run entitlement program.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Onward Christian Shoulders... 