| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/03/2009 06:36:51 PM · #801 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And yes, I do have some finance and economics background, but I'm not going to try to prove the negative. |
Also read as "another liberal to keep head buried in the sand." Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 06:45:42 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And yes, I do have some finance and economics background, but I'm not going to try to prove the negative. |
Also read as "another liberal to keep head buried in the sand." Unbelievable. |
Oh yeah...you've also never bothered to address why the Senate Finance Committee also says that the program is unsustainable. Not that it is a surprise that liberals ignore facts because they're too busy wishing on stars and expecting more handouts. Show me how it could work without taxing me more or just keep your bullshit rhetoric to yourself. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 07:22:44 PM · #803 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'll say it again, that's a false claim and you know it because it's already been debunked in this very thread. As the legislation stands now, only those taxpayers with an income of $350,000 and above will pay additional tax. |
And as the legislation stands only about half of the projected cost (which if recent history is correct will be way less then actual) is covered by the proposed tax increases. If they are double pinky swearing that they won't increase debt for healthcare they must raise taxes more then the current plan, or cut cost from the plan (which never happens).
So yeah, shockingly I don't believe what they are saying.
For me, my taxes will go up, my insurance premiums will go up, and my quality of care will probably decrease. If I go on the govt option, my premiums will drop and my quality of care will drop.
Sorry, I'd much rather see a plan that reduces the cost of medical care and drugs to lower premiums so all can afford it and all save money. Govt take over will not lower the cost of drugs and care (as proven by the CBO) and that is what is currently on the table. High costs are the problem, that is what should be addressed. |
I don't know that the CBO has proven anything. I read an interesting article recently about the CBO's projections on health care legislation. From the article:
"Put most simply, the CBOâs track record in predicting the effects of health legislation is abysmal. Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures. Most recently, it overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D â the prescription drug benefit -â by more than 35%. Even more dramatically, the CBOâs estimates of the Medicare savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 underestimated the impact, on average, by a full 100%. Thatâs right: In the BBAâs first three years, Medicare spending fell fully twice as fast as the CBO had projected."
I also agree with the conclusion of the article, that any new legislation as ambitious as this will inevitably require mid-course corrections and that we shouldn't let the unpredictable and unknowable at this point stand in the way of reforming the health care system. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 08:12:38 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Show me how it could work without taxing me more or just keep your bullshit rhetoric to yourself. |
If you put everyone on one plan you can drive health care costs down. Instead of a premium you pay a tax but you still save money. Its really more complex than that but I'm trying to dumb it down to stupid for you. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 09:05:09 PM · #805 |
Originally posted by Niten:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Show me how it could work without taxing me more or just keep your bullshit rhetoric to yourself. |
If you put everyone on one plan you can drive health care costs down. Instead of a premium you pay a tax but you still save money. Its really more complex than that but I'm trying to dumb it down to stupid for you. |
Now you are talking about socialized health care, which obama SWEARS is not his goal. So, is that really what you guys are after? I think your stupidity would have been a little less obvious had you just told me that it was magic. Nice work there math genius. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 09:07:12 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I also agree with the conclusion of the article, that any new legislation as ambitious as this will inevitably require mid-course corrections and that we shouldn't let the unpredictable and unknowable at this point stand in the way of reforming the health care system. |
Typical democrat plan...let's just make this shit up as we go along. Great idea! Hell, its only a few TRILLION dollars. Great work of the mathematical proof there. You guys should never be allowed to touch anyone else's money. Ever. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 09:22:15 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by Niten:
If you put everyone on one plan you can drive health care costs down. |
If you put everyone on ONE plan then it becomes a monopoly. A monopoly never lower rate, it always raises rates. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 09:42:51 PM · #808 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Typical democrat plan...let's just make this shit up as we go along. Great idea! Hell, its only a few TRILLION dollars. Great work of the mathematical proof there. You guys should never be allowed to touch anyone else's money. Ever. |
Can you make this argument without partisan party attack lines, or shallow insults? I'm sure members of the flat earth society could make a better argument that the world is flat. Put a little less invective and a bit more thought into your arguments and you might convince folks who have an open mind that you are right.
As far as the horrors of monopoly, I get my trash picked up by a monopoly, my electricity, gas and water are all sold to my cheaply with outstanding value by a monopoly. Regulated monopolies are often the best model for certain services. The question to my mind is, is healthcare more like the water supply or more like a consumer product, like a candy bar or an automobile? |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 09:46:21 PM · #809 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'll say it again, that's a false claim and you know it because it's already been debunked in this very thread. As the legislation stands now, only those taxpayers with an income of $350,000 and above will pay additional tax. |
And as the legislation stands only about half of the projected cost (which if recent history is correct will be way less then actual) is covered by the proposed tax increases. If they are double pinky swearing that they won't increase debt for healthcare they must raise taxes more then the current plan, or cut cost from the plan (which never happens).
So yeah, shockingly I don't believe what they are saying.
For me, my taxes will go up, my insurance premiums will go up, and my quality of care will probably decrease. If I go on the govt option, my premiums will drop and my quality of care will drop.
Sorry, I'd much rather see a plan that reduces the cost of medical care and drugs to lower premiums so all can afford it and all save money. Govt take over will not lower the cost of drugs and care (as proven by the CBO) and that is what is currently on the table. High costs are the problem, that is what should be addressed. |
I don't know that the CBO has proven anything. I read an interesting article recently about the CBO's projections on health care legislation. From the article:
"Put most simply, the CBOâs track record in predicting the effects of health legislation is abysmal. Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures. Most recently, it overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D â the prescription drug benefit -â by more than 35%. Even more dramatically, the CBOâs estimates of the Medicare savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 underestimated the impact, on average, by a full 100%. Thatâs right: In the BBAâs first three years, Medicare spending fell fully twice as fast as the CBO had projected."
I also agree with the conclusion of the article, that any new legislation as ambitious as this will inevitably require mid-course corrections and that we shouldn't let the unpredictable and unknowable at this point stand in the way of reforming the health care system. |
So basically this one guy says the CBO has a bad track record and you believe it because it goes along with your agenda. You dripped some kool aid on your shirt. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 09:52:22 PM · #810 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
As far as the horrors of monopoly, I get my trash picked up by a monopoly, my electricity, gas and water are all sold to my cheaply with outstanding value by a monopoly. Regulated monopolies are often the best model for certain services. The question to my mind is, is healthcare more like the water supply or more like a consumer product, like a candy bar or an automobile? |
When my trash man dumps some garbage in my driveway and does not like it when I point it out, I can't go elsewhere.
When my power is out for 11 days and i still get a bill for the month, I can't go elsewhere.
When the water company poisons an entire city and we all have the $hits for a week, nothing I can do and I still get a bill.
When your life saving surgery is refused by the govt, or you have to wait 6 months, you may rethink that monopoply is a good thing thought. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 09:53:25 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Put a little less invective and a bit more thought into your arguments and you might convince folks who have an open mind that you are right. |
There is nothing you can do to convince most of these idiots. But good point...it really is like they're arguing that the world is flat. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 09:55:08 PM · #812 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'll say it again, that's a false claim and you know it because it's already been debunked in this very thread. As the legislation stands now, only those taxpayers with an income of $350,000 and above will pay additional tax. |
And as the legislation stands only about half of the projected cost (which if recent history is correct will be way less then actual) is covered by the proposed tax increases. If they are double pinky swearing that they won't increase debt for healthcare they must raise taxes more then the current plan, or cut cost from the plan (which never happens).
So yeah, shockingly I don't believe what they are saying.
For me, my taxes will go up, my insurance premiums will go up, and my quality of care will probably decrease. If I go on the govt option, my premiums will drop and my quality of care will drop.
Sorry, I'd much rather see a plan that reduces the cost of medical care and drugs to lower premiums so all can afford it and all save money. Govt take over will not lower the cost of drugs and care (as proven by the CBO) and that is what is currently on the table. High costs are the problem, that is what should be addressed. |
I don't know that the CBO has proven anything. I read an interesting article recently about the CBO's projections on health care legislation. From the article:
"Put most simply, the CBOâs track record in predicting the effects of health legislation is abysmal. Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures. Most recently, it overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D â the prescription drug benefit -â by more than 35%. Even more dramatically, the CBOâs estimates of the Medicare savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 underestimated the impact, on average, by a full 100%. Thatâs right: In the BBAâs first three years, Medicare spending fell fully twice as fast as the CBO had projected."
I also agree with the conclusion of the article, that any new legislation as ambitious as this will inevitably require mid-course corrections and that we shouldn't let the unpredictable and unknowable at this point stand in the way of reforming the health care system. |
So basically this one guy says the CBO has a bad track record and you believe it because it goes along with your agenda. You dripped some kool aid on your shirt. |
That's all she knows how to do. Its like her every argument is "someone told me what I want to hear, so that's how it is." Just tons and tons of nonsense. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 10:20:16 PM · #813 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
When the water company poisons an entire city and we all have the $hits for a week, nothing I can do and I still get a bill.
When your life saving surgery is refused by the govt, or you have to wait 6 months, you may rethink that monopoply is a good thing thought. |
Well maybe you will get lucky and your water rights will get privatized as they are being in Arizona and you can get a more market driven approach, but it hasn't worked out too well there, unless you are a speculator or investor in water rights, lots of money to be made there.
Your trash can always be dealt with yourself, haul your own to the dump and show that nasty monopoly that does such a bad job.
And right now health care given "pre-existing conditions" for anyone over the age of fifty, you are buying your insurance from a functional monopoly, and it isn't the government telling me I can't get an MIR on the torn meniscus in my knee, it is an accountant in another state who has the power to ration my healthcare. Given my self employment and age, if i decide to switch providers, chances are no one else will take the $1,135 a month I am paying to be insured. And not get my knee dealt with.
Fact is nothing is perfect, your utilities may not live up to your ideal, but their record of value and safety is the envy of most of the rest of the world. If you make the perfect the enemy of the good, you will achieve nothing. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 10:33:44 PM · #814 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
And right now health care given "pre-existing conditions" for anyone over the age of fifty, you are buying your insurance from a functional monopoly, and it isn't the government telling me I can't get an MIR on the torn meniscus in my knee, it is an accountant in another state who has the power to ration my healthcare. Given my self employment and age, if i decide to switch providers, chances are no one else will take the $1,135 a month I am paying to be insured. And not get my knee dealt with. |
And that is wrong and should be fixed. Govt option being pushed makes things better for a few and worse for everyone else. Lets demand real reform so it's better for all.
Problem with govt takeover is all the people making the rules of the game rely on donations to get re-elected and vote accordingly. It's really no different then the free market except we are a couple more steps away from making the decisions and the politicans sell out to the highest bidder rather then the lowest bidder with the best quality.
Why is drug cost reform not on the table? Maybe because they donate lots of money to congress? |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 10:47:21 PM · #815 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Maybe because they donate lots of money to congress? |
Bingo! the plan on the table is "real politic". It tries for reform without pissing off entrenched political donors. As Twain said "we have the best congress money can buy". I don't blame the good folks in office, it is the way our system is. If I were king of the world I'd like to see a swiss private system with heavy oversight or the French system a complex, but very effective public private system. We will eventually end up with one of these systems since I can't see us going for a one payer British/ Canadian style system. our current system is just too wasteful. |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 10:58:01 PM · #816 |
Health Care That Works
Originally posted by cited article:
Until the mid-19th century, firefighting was left mostly to a mishmash of volunteer crews and private fire insurance companies. In New York City, according to accounts in The New York Times in the 1850s and 1860s, firefighting often descended into chaos, with drunkenness and looting.
So almost every country moved to what todayâs health insurance lobbyists might label âsocialized firefighting.â In effect, we have a single-payer system of public fire departments.
We have the same for policing. If the security guard business were as powerful as the health insurance industry, then it would be denouncing âgovernment takeoversâ and âsocialized police work.â
Throughout the industrialized world, there are a handful of these areas where governments fill needs better than free markets: fire protection, police work, education, postal service, libraries, health care. The United States goes along with this international trend in every area but one: health care. |
|
|
|
|
09/03/2009 11:21:18 PM · #817 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Maybe because they donate lots of money to congress? |
Bingo! the plan on the table is "real politic". It tries for reform without pissing off entrenched political donors. As Twain said "we have the best congress money can buy". I don't blame the good folks in office, it is the way our system is. If I were king of the world I'd like to see a swiss private system with heavy oversight or the French system a complex, but very effective public private system. We will eventually end up with one of these systems since I can't see us going for a one payer British/ Canadian style system. our current system is just too wasteful. |
Yet you think this bought congress should run our health care? Will they care more about your knee then the big donation from Phizer? Especially when you can't fire them if you are unhappy?
Put any 5 people on this board in a room together and we'd get great reform that I'd vote for. Introduce congress looking to keep their job and donations and it becomes a mess I want nothing to do with. And note by congress I mean the D's and the R's. I don't want either running my healthcare, and a worst case senario is both running it! |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 11:43:19 PM · #818 |
Medicare works very good when you have a second insurance to back it up. By it's self it not good but better than nothing.
I would bet that the 8 out of 10 that said Medicare was great had that second insurance and/or third insurance, if not a forth and fifth.
Part A Premiums (Hospitalization)
Most people do not pay for Part A
40 or more hours: They have paid Medicare taxes for 40 or more quarters while working and the cost is $0.00.
30 to 39 hours: They can buy Medicare Part A for $244.00 per month, per individual.
Less than 30 Hours: They can buy Medicare Part A for $443.00 per month, per individual.
Part B Premiums (Doctor Visits)
Income up to $85,000 (individual), $170,000 (Married Couples):$96.40
$85,001 to $107,000 (I), $170,001 to $214,000 (MC): $134.90
$107,001 to $160,000 (I), $214,001 to $320,000 (MC): $ $192.70
$160,001 to $213,000 (I), $320,001 to $426,000 (MC): $250.50
Over $ 213,000 (I), Over $426,000 (MC): $308.30
Deductibles and Co-payments
Part A Deductible: The 2009 Part A deductible is $1,068 per illness.
Part B Deductible: The 2009 Part B deductible is $135.
Part A Co-payments: The Part A deductible covers the first 60 days of a Medicare-covered hospital stay. Then you pay $267 a day for days 61 through 90. After the 90th day, your co-pay for lifetime reserve days is $534 a day.
Part B Co-payments:
20% per doctors visit
And a one-time "Welcome to Medicare" physical within the 1st six-months after turning 65.
Medicare does not pay for:
Dental
Vision
Prescriptions
Now compare the above benefits / cost to your current insurance. The government run Medicare is not so cheep.
With the 2009 Medicare tax at 7.65% an individual making $50,000 /yr would pay the following for medicare if the government would offer it to them.
Part A: $3825 per year
Part B: $1157 per year
Total : $4982 per year
Now how much do you pay now for insurance (remember this does not cover prescriptions, dental, or vision).
So what would a government run plan cost us???
I would hate to know!
Message edited by author 2009-09-03 23:45:59. |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 02:04:24 AM · #819 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Yet you think this bought congress should run our health care? Will they care more about your knee then the big donation from Phizer? Especially when you can't fire them if you are unhappy? |
Right now your choices are Congress as driven by their need for re-election. so they must please their corporate masters, or just the afore mentioned corporations, without any real oversight. So ya, I'd prefer the rule of a tainted Congress over the pure taint that is the money of corporate profit driven insurance money. I can have more effect on my congressperson than I can the CEO of Humana Corp.
Message edited by author 2009-09-04 02:12:21. |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 02:11:36 AM · #820 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Now how much do you pay now for insurance (remember this does not cover prescriptions, dental, or vision).
So what would a government run plan cost us???
I would hate to know! |
So would your health coverage supplier.
It might cost one third less if it was the Swiss private payer with oversight system. Or about half if we use the French model. We now pay more and get less per dollar than any other system in the world.
So why are you so certain that costs would rise in the long term when our current system is already so much more costly than any other model? These other countries are not superior to us in most ways, why can they do it while we can not? |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 07:18:48 AM · #821 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
That's all she knows how to do. Its like her every argument is "someone told me what I want to hear, so that's how it is." Just tons and tons of nonsense. |
Compared to those fact filled rebuttals that you proffer right??? GImme a break.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 08:35:01 AM · #822 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Now how much do you pay now for insurance (remember this does not cover prescriptions, dental, or vision).
So what would a government run plan cost us???
I would hate to know! |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So would your health coverage supplier.
It might cost one third less if it was the Swiss private payer with oversight system. Or about half if we use the French model. We now pay more and get less per dollar than any other system in the world.
So why are you so certain that costs would rise in the long term when our current system is already so much more costly than any other model? These other countries are not superior to us in most ways, why can they do it while we can not? |
I do not comprehend this vehement aversion to health care reform based purely on opinion and supposition.
I keep hearing all this rhetoric about how it's going to be the end of it all, yet not one iota of proof that it won't work is being offered up.
Our system is a disgraceful mess, there's alternatives being put forth, and people willing to work with it, yet all we hear is bitching.
NOBODY has put one single idea out there.....they just bitch and have decided that the reform concepts cannot possibly work......and purely by supposition.
Well, what makes you so f*cking sure?
IMNSHO, anything's better than the screwed up mess we have now! |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 09:10:47 AM · #823 |
What are we discussing here?
Some of you are saying the govt option is not a veiled attempt at single payer because obama said so, while others are saying single payer is the best way to solve our problems. Then there are those that would like to see real reform to bring down costs (myself). Anyone else?
Apparently what is being proposed is not single payer? So if you are for single payer shouldn't you oppose the exisiting proposal and demand what you want? Or do you agree with me in that the proposal as it exists is a step to single payer? |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 09:14:48 AM · #824 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
When your life saving surgery is refused by the govt, or you have to wait 6 months, you may rethink that monopoply is a good thing thought. |
But private insurance companies base their entire business plan on refusing surgeries and still collecting preniums... I don't see much of a difference |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 09:28:14 AM · #825 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by SDW:
Now how much do you pay now for insurance (remember this does not cover prescriptions, dental, or vision).
So what would a government run plan cost us???
I would hate to know! |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So would your health coverage supplier.
It might cost one third less if it was the Swiss private payer with oversight system. Or about half if we use the French model. We now pay more and get less per dollar than any other system in the world.
So why are you so certain that costs would rise in the long term when our current system is already so much more costly than any other model? These other countries are not superior to us in most ways, why can they do it while we can not? |
I do not comprehend this vehement aversion to health care reform based purely on opinion and supposition.
I keep hearing all this rhetoric about how it's going to be the end of it all, yet not one iota of proof that it won't work is being offered up.
Our system is a disgraceful mess, there's alternatives being put forth, and people willing to work with it, yet all we hear is bitching.
NOBODY has put one single idea out there.....they just bitch and have decided that the reform concepts cannot possibly work......and purely by supposition.
Well, what makes you so f*cking sure?
IMNSHO, anything's better than the screwed up mess we have now! |
I'm not saying that the current healthcare packages that we have now is not flawed, it is.
But if you look at how much the government charges for medicare in tax or premium what would make me think it would be cheaper?
What would make me think they would offer more services than they do now?
I just payed my family insurance today ($277.98) which is family coverage and includes medical, prescription, vision, and dental. All most all of my medications are $5.00 for a months supply and some are $10.00 for a 90-day supply. I have not yet been denied any test or services by my insurance company.
In the last month I have had X-Rays, MRI, C-Pap study, blood drawn 3-times, four doctors visits, and being referred to a orthopedic doctor for my SEL.
Services are quick. When I told my doctor about my back he ordered the X-ray while I was there. The next day I was informed I was to have an MRI in 2-Days because of the findings.
A lot of people are happy with there coverage, sure no one wants to pay high premiums and some can't afford them, such as I.
I believe we need reform that would help cover the uninsured and help the ones that can afford coverage. Reform should cut out some of the waist.
There are five + bills in the house on the healthcare debate but NO ONE knows whats in them or which one will be the final bill. So how can we say it will be a better plan? We can't!
I believe the President is going before congress in a joint session this week to outline what he wants in the bill. I'm very interested and willing to listen AND hope he goes into details. Maybe some of the back-and-forth bickering will stop.
We all know that reform is need but to what extent and level. |
|
