We Must Ignite This Couch Message Boards

« 1 (2) 3 4 5 »

 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7701
MountyInSC - This is the post that I thought your links were a part of, and the post that got my dander up a bit.



Quote:

sg44gold wrote:
Ha! This article is COMPLETE FICTION!!! (Notice the artful use of ALL CAPS!!!)

Love the way he just glosses over Obama Care that, oh by the way, will create government run health care and plumet this country into depths of deficits the likes of which we could never even imagined!!!

Think Social Security plus Medicare x 10!!!

This article is PURE Propaganda.

Posted on: 2/10/2011 4:21 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
6/12/2010 11:13 pm
From Jacksonville, FL via Parkersburg
Posts: 3634
Quote:

sg44gold wrote:
Ha! This article is COMPLETE FICTION!!! (Notice the artful use of ALL CAPS!!!)

Love the way he just glosses over Obama Care that, oh by the way, will create government run health care and plumet this country into depths of deficits the likes of which we could never even imagined!!!

Think Social Security plus Medicare x 10!!!

This article is PURE Propaganda.


Eers88 wrote:

Nothing that you wrote is supported by fact (and thus is complete fiction). The author does not "gloss over" healthcare; he spends an entire paragraph discussing it and cites and links to a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that shows that healthcare reform will reduce budget deficits (contrary to your unsupported assertion that it will increase deficits to an "unimaginable" level). By the way, the folks that work in that office have advanced degrees in economic analysis; the study was not done by interns. Moreover, the healthcare reform act did not and will not produce "government run" healthcare; it affects healthcare insurance and costs. To the extent that it involves healthcare regulation, that ship has sailed and both the federal and state governments "run" healthcare by regulating it. You are simply spouting the same "pure propoganda" that the insurance companies want people to believe. If you can support any of your assertions with facts, which should be easy given your assertion that the article is complete fiction, then I am all ears (pun intended).

end quote

bumping this post. lots of wisdom in it.

rd

Posted on: 2/10/2011 7:25 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Pitt Hater
Joined:
6/26/2010 9:15 am
Posts: 2388
Short Economics lesson, for the drinkers of the Obama health care Kool Aid - Medicare and Medicaid - in fact have resulted in increased health care costs, period.
How - It is simple, the government (Medicare & Medicaid) only pays 1/4 or less of the going rate for a procedure therefore the added cost is sent down the line to the insured and uninsured that pay cash. See how simple that is.

Posted on: 2/10/2011 8:23 pm
_________________
montani semper liberi & est ratio liberalismi aegritudinis animi
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Suspected Punter
Joined:
1/18/2008 2:42 pm
From Virginia
Posts: 53
Don't really care either way but the CBO only scores what they are given. In this case, they were given 10 years of increased taxes and 6 years of costs/services. Of course it's going to look good under this scenario. Side note... The CBO director just came out today and stated the law will cost 800,000 jobs.

If in 10-15 years we have affordable quality health care and a reduced budget I'll be happy. Until that time I'll be skeptical of any government run program (based on their miserable track record).

When has a single government program come in at or under budget? I wish the politicians had some skin in the game. Their retirement packages should be based on success/failure of the projects for which they voted. If they voted for a program they claimed would cost $200B and it ends up costing the country $500B they should take a hit in their pension/retirement. Too often these folks vote for something (without reading it in this case) then move on to the next issue. If they focused on avoiding unnecessary cost overruns and getting things right as opposed to just passing something perhaps we would not be in the deficit mess we are in today.


Posted on: 2/10/2011 9:16 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
6/12/2010 11:13 pm
From Jacksonville, FL via Parkersburg
Posts: 3634
first of all it's not a government program.

It's a law regulating a private insurance market.

secondly, to joe, all health care costs have skyrocketed, Medicare didn't cause it, it reflects it. In fact, Medicare reimbursements can't be raised fast enough to keep up with skyrocketing costs, hence the heartburn about doctors not being reimbursed enough.

That costs are out of control is the only reason this thing got done. There are very few besides right wingers making unknowledgeable posts that don't agree that serious regulation has to take place.

Some point more towards malpractice reform, and I agree that has to happen and should be happening and hearings are being held on it, but that is a small part of it.

Of course you knowledgeable posters could always tell us what your solution is. I heard the other day it's "hope I don't get sick".

rd

Posted on: 2/10/2011 10:56 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Party Machine
Joined:
4/22/2007 5:17 pm
From graffenwhor,germany
Posts: 514
Caution sry about my trek through the hospital but it kinda was on topic

Mounty u talk to me like I'm stupid. Those 2 links didn't say nothing against what I had to say. The president can request funds but congress still has to approve it. And he can suggest bills and laws he can make them. And what do u think the state of the union is? the presidents budget plan for the year is in there. It's one of the main reasons they do it. But no one listens to that part they wanna hear when were pulling out of Iraq and afgahnistan(but no one cares about Kosovo or Korea?) or about health care

When it comes down to it every government plan will fail or make the economy worse. Until they turn it into a business. But that wouldn't happen cuz it's a government for the people by the people right. So making money won't be more important than peoples needs. But y it will fail is it can't turn a profit. It's like say u go to a family owned buissnes and get an IOU or say this is all I got. Then the owner says it's ok pay me what u can when u can. But now say a depression hits, no one has money instead of 1 or 2 people a week it's 15 or 20 if not more. Ether he will stop letting people get iou's and paying half price or he'll go out of buissnes right?

I want to point out y it's a family store.
1 cuz they care about there community
2 cuz it's one entity. If u had a walmart it would be more like a healthcare system/insurance in multiple contries as it's a chain and brings in money from other places.

But our government wasn't set up to be a business. Bow if it could be changed to where it could be it would work fine. But that means u'd be turned down multiple times and when u get approved it would take forever to get treated.

Actually guess where I'm at right now? In the German hospital on my iPhone. I have been here since 6 and it's 758 now. The receptionist just said it would be about 20 more minutes. I have been the only person in the waiting room the whole time. That's universal health care. The Germans have had it since before 1900 if I'm not mistaken. There nice people but there's only so much they can do. When she booted up her computer it was still windows xp. Now we all kno doctors r rich right. And I thought hospitals brought in alot of money I'm not sure tho. But what happens when they get paid by the government? They will be getting what the government says it's worth wouldn't they? The doctor won't be going to the government and saying that was a 3000 dollar hospital bill. The government will be going to him and saying that was worth 2200. And that just covers the minimums. And for those that don't kno that's how most government things work they hire a specialist to come in and see what it's worth and then charge that much.


K in there defense there trying to get things all done today. But I didn't get seen until 830 and I had like 40 minute class on every thing. I think it's a mixture of the language and not sueing them. But before any one judges me I have alot of blood in my urine, I haven't cheated on my girl friend she is back in WV but it took about an hour to give a blood sample, pee in a cup and have an ultra sound done. Doesn't sound bad until u realize that all the stuff was done in the room. Just they had to go scrounge the stuff up from supply closets. I have to have an x ray and blather check thing :(. Ge said I might have to come back tomorrow lol it's almost 940 am. I can understand taking a while since I didn't have a appointment for that stuff but to come back tomorrow?

I want to add in there he asked me where I was from in the states. I said charleston,WV and he started singing country roads haha

So I got out at 1251 things when pretty good I have to wait 2 weeks for results. They asked me a billion times if I was allergic to the contrast medium for the x rays. But all in all I liked it better than the doctors in the states. But not cuz of the procedures it was cuz of the people. They were genuinely there because they like to help people. But when I did the tube in the urithrea thing so they could see the inside of my blater it was ether be put to sleep or take it like a man. And because I was alone in a German hospital 40 mins from base I had to be alert so I had to take it like a man. There wasn't just make it numb and there where all the old monitors the big ones not the flat panel lcds. They made due with what they had and that's fine with me. This started out bashing but I'd be able to make it. But most people that bring in 6 figures and up will find privat practices and pay that extra that the coverage might or might not cover cuz of them having better stuff.

I think it's the opposite of trickle down economics. Which I believe is good for the economy but the average go never sees it. The healthcare will be good for average Joe but will hurt the economy.

All in all I got there early with no line and had to wait cuz they had to find stuff for the day. Lucky me they found the flex tube to look at my blater. The doctor wanted me to come back in a week cuz more was on the way. But by the time I left there were people standing in the waiting room and people in the beds in the asles. But the worst part was waiting the hour for my x rays when the room was beside me. And I had a needle in my arm the hole time with no iv. It still wasn't bad tho nice genuinely happy people who asked alot about the u.s. And like getting answers even about my last name and if I was named after the Hudson bay haha.

Posted on: 2/11/2011 10:19 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7701
Quote:

joedaddyski wrote:
Short Economics lesson, for the drinkers of the Obama health care Kool Aid - Medicare and Medicaid - in fact have resulted in increased health care costs, period.
How - It is simple, the government (Medicare & Medicaid) only pays 1/4 or less of the going rate for a procedure therefore the added cost is sent down the line to the insured and uninsured that pay cash. See how simple that is.


Gosh, Imagine if Medicaid didn't exist and ALL that cost was sent down the line.


Posted on: 2/11/2011 10:30 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7701
Quote:

KmasterC wrote:

When it comes down to it every government plan will fail or make the economy worse. Until they turn it into a business.


Absolute, blanket statements like this make my eyebrow twitch.

In any event, I suppose it is partially accurate as long as those in favor of free markets and privatization are determining what "failure" is. A hard lesson for them to learn is that there is a fundamental difference between a government program and a business. One is not concerned at all with profit - and is (purportedly) to be for the public good. The other is concerned wholly with profit, and has made laws that say it has to do what is best for the shareholders (even if those actions are not what is best for the nation or the common good).

Both have their flaws, obviously.

Posted on: 2/11/2011 11:25 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
1/18/2008 2:39 pm
Posts: 8385
Quote:

KmasterC wrote:
Caution sry about my trek through the hospital but it kinda was on topic

Mounty u talk to me like I'm stupid. Those 2 links didn't say nothing against what I had to say.


Your post contained factual inaccuracies. I was merely trying to help you understand how these things work. Based on your post, it appeared that you didn't have a true grasp of how things work.

Posted on: 2/11/2011 11:27 am
_________________
Beati pacifici
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Pitt Hater
Joined:
6/26/2010 9:15 am
Posts: 2388
Quote:

zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

joedaddyski wrote:
Short Economics lesson, for the drinkers of the Obama health care Kool Aid - Medicare and Medicaid - in fact have resulted in increased health care costs, period.
How - It is simple, the government (Medicare & Medicaid) only pays 1/4 or less of the going rate for a procedure therefore the added cost is sent down the line to the insured and uninsured that pay cash. See how simple that is.


Gosh, Imagine if Medicaid didn't exist and ALL that cost was sent down the line.


Next time you are in line at the grocery store why don't you just pay 3/4 of the persons bill in front or behind, you pick.

Posted on: 2/11/2011 11:50 am
_________________
montani semper liberi & est ratio liberalismi aegritudinis animi
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7701
Quote:

joedaddyski wrote:

Next time you are in line at the grocery store why don't you just pay 3/4 of the persons bill in front or behind, you pick.


ehh, not really a valid metaphor. Did you mean

"Next time you are in line at the grocery store why don't you just ask the persons in front or behind you if they are on food stamps, and tell them your taxes paid for their allowable groceries, but tell them in a hospital your payroll taxes would only have paid only 1/4, and the other 3/4 would have been paid by you in insurance overages. Then you could get into the whole pointless ideological debate regarding why some people seem to feel better paying this through a private insurance company, while others seem more comfortable paying it through a public program - but the end result is mostly the same both financially and morally"

No, I wouldn't do that.

Posted on: 2/11/2011 12:25 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Party Machine
Joined:
4/22/2007 5:17 pm
From graffenwhor,germany
Posts: 514
zwaa
how would it not hurt the economy? the government is spending money right? r they making a profit off the people there helping? if they where most people wouldnt want it. but other wise ur spending money with out bringing any in right? so in this case federally funded project that dont make a profit= loss of money. now if they did turn it into a business were they turned a profit like all other insurance's then there wouldnt be a change and no one would care. does common since make ur eye brow twitch.

think about it like this, u order a subscription to a magazine or something. u pay say 20 dollars a month or 40 for u lonley guys on the internet. thats money u dont see a return from there for say u make 600 every check ur now making 580-560 dollars a check. now with the government it will probably end up coming out of ur check like how i pay 111 dollars every month for the dfac. because they "have" to provide me 3 meals a day(even tho u usually miss it cuz of work or anything from the food court is better). but thats just about any government project cuz there source of income it taxes and bonds(which i learned china bought a bunch of bonds thats y people say we r owned by china, i previously thought it was cuz we just bought so much stuff from them). so unless the government projects turn a profit like charge 20 dollars for a 10 dollar bottle of Tylenol then it will loose money. but then it doesnt become OUR government and they dont need us for our money so thats how it wont be a government for the people. now in ur defense there r some thing the government does need to spend money on like defense, postal service, and to pay government workers. but that is still loosing money as the government can only get as much money as taxes and investments it receives.

so before u try making me like and idiot about a statement i make think about it. it might make since. sometimes u can afford to buy that years subscription to wow and some times u cant afford that and gotta by the 30 dollar cards. but being 14 trillion in debt u cant really afford the internet service to play the game.

mounty
what part was in accurate?
it said the president made the budget,that congress gives him the money, and y is it called oboma care? cuz congress has to make it not him. he can give them ideas. thats like saying columbus discovered America. even tho leif ericson did it 500 years before. and tell me what part of the statement of makeing the laws and enforcing them is a conflict of interests.

but the president should be more like we need to find a way to do this, not have the whole idea laid out and congress just pass it. thats like me an infantry man going and telling a Apache pilot that when he shoot his chain gun to only shoot 3/4 round bursts.

theres only 2 ways two ways a government can be run with a diverse population like ours: ether one person tell everyone what to do or have a place for debat and compromise. and it just feels like congress wants to do what ever the president wants. and it shouldnt be republicans vs democrats. its almost a guarantee there votes will oppose eachother for the most part. thats not debate thats close minded-ness.

im not against universal healthcare, and a true communism defined by the manifesto of communism written my karal marx is every ones idea of the perfect utopia. im not close minded like the liberals and conservatives. i know that both of those r good things but i happen to like the free market capitalistic thing we have now.

my main point now is take ur anti virus. how many of u have a type of norton and mcfee? how many of u have kapersky or avast? not norton and mcfee cost as much ass kapersky and avast but they r inferior to them. so which one is worth ur money? me personally i use vipre premium its about 10 dollars cheaper and is up there with kapersky and other suit protections. so im getting something about as good(personally i think better but reviews have it a few points behind it) as the other ones for cheaper. but what if there was only 1 choice? they wouldnt ever have to get better, or give a better price. now that goes with healthcare to. it will probably ether make the other insurances drop there prices to compete or go out of business. but what happens when people want to switch to a better deal? will the government automatically take the money out of ur check like they do my food ration? now u say its paid by taxes. but what happens if theres not enough people using it to justify it. will they drop it? or make more people use it.

Posted on: 2/12/2011 2:09 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12958
Quote:

joedaddyski wrote:
Short Economics lesson, for the drinkers of the Obama health care Kool Aid - Medicare and Medicaid - in fact have resulted in increased health care costs, period.
How - It is simple, the government (Medicare & Medicaid) only pays 1/4 or less of the going rate for a procedure therefore the added cost is sent down the line to the insured and uninsured that pay cash. See how simple that is.


joedaddy - you might want to actually educate yourself on health care reform as well as Medicare and Medicaid before you think about giving any lessons on those subjects. HCR does not create government-funded health care; it affects the relationships between private insurers and insureds. Medicare and Medicaid are partially-funded programs for certain citizens who qualify because of age, disability, etc. They are apples and oranges.

BTW - your premise that Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for rising health care costs is mistaken. The Kaiser foundation identifies the factors for rising health care costs in the link below:

http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Module ... sts/Background-Brief.aspx

Posted on: 2/12/2011 2:45 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
6/12/2010 11:13 pm
From Jacksonville, FL via Parkersburg
Posts: 3634
K, this is a very good post. Lots of good points and questions. I have answers, but some of the issues raised are very broad.

I'm glad you picked up on China owning us. They purchase large amounts of US debt and manipulate their currency with it to underprice their goods.

This sounds theoetical, but what it means is that Chinese imports are very cheap not only because of cheap Chinese labor but because the currency exchange is manipulated by China using US reserves it owns to control the price exchange even lower.

That may still sound too theoretical. What the end result is is that China loans us money to buy their artificially cheapened goods, transferring our wealth to them in two ways. The third way they do it is by controlling all manufacturing other countries bring to China for cheap labor and obtaining all knowledge of anything related from the companies.

The fourth way is concentrated cyberwarfare over the internet against certainly the US and probably all western countries stealing defense and business secrets and of course copy and steal everything that can be copied, ranging from music to software to a Stealth jet that coincidentally of course crashed in China. Yes, now they have Stealth technology too.

Americans are little more than bribed spectators in the Colliseum oblivious to the sounds of the crashing gates.

My solution of a real fair trade import tax deals with trade imbalances regardless of the cause, be it cheap labor and destroyed environment, manipulated currency, stolen instead of purchased intellectual property, or in the case of China, all of the above.

As for your civics questions, the President proposes, Congress disposes. The President is only successfull in getting his priorities addressed to the degree that his party has majority rule in both the House and Senate.

Without that, his main power is veto requiring 2/3 of House and Senate to override him. Again, that power is dependent on having at least 1/3 of his party in either the House or Senate.

This assumes that the party of the President supports his priorities for the most part. The above can be read more accurately by replacing "his party" with "those who support him on an issue", which is generally his party.

rd

Posted on: 2/12/2011 2:49 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Party Machine
Joined:
4/22/2007 5:17 pm
From graffenwhor,germany
Posts: 514
rd very good stuff. if i read that right u said china is kinda like enron. yea they sale a product but on the other side they make money just cuz they say they do. and about stealing stuff most people dont know that. i only know cuz when we gor briefed on our new cac cards the joked and said the chines already had then a couple of months before we got them.

as for the way u said the president stuff that actually was put nice;y. about addressing his priority not just suggesting laws. but the only thing is the more laws there is the less effective government is. government should be more of a case by case bases, cuz what people in navada need might not be what i need in WV(talking about that illegal alien thing that happened).but if it becomes a federal law it does. now all a Latino person has to do it make the jurry think he got pulled over for being mexican instead of speeding, and he gets off. thats y theres a judicial branch. there the ones supposed to interpret the laws thats y they can be general. but andrew jackson kinda stole there thunder.

of course i am kinda bias i think the us should move to a confederation instead of a more central government.

Posted on: 2/12/2011 3:22 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
6/12/2010 11:13 pm
From Jacksonville, FL via Parkersburg
Posts: 3634
sounds good in theory, but the Federal government can print money and the states can't. So they play this little, very expensive, game where the states send in bushel loads of money and Congress, made up of representatives of all those states, send back truck loads of money they printed up. And of course the states and counties and cities are borrowing as fast as they can too.

They're all in over their heads. The dot com bubble was first to crash, followed by jobs crash, then real estate market crashed.

Commercial real estate market is teetering, and the debt market will implode from overload any time now. We are just one announcement of a major Saudi oil field run dry away from the biggest oil market frenzy you could ever imagine.

I don't see any upside. It will take the Tea Party to dismantle the arcane Federal power structure and return to a confederation of states, but they will all be broke.

Maybe happy though with no more unfunded federal mandates and squandering of their tax dollars.

Oh, and US troops will be pulled back in a big way, along with ending foreign aid, if that happens.

rd

Posted on: 2/12/2011 8:06 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7701
Quote:

KmasterC wrote:
zwaa
how would it not hurt the economy?


I don't recall saying it would or wouldn't. What I said (and what I am saying now) is that you can pay this to the insurance companies, or you can pay it to the government plan, but you WILL pay it because if we are to be moral and just we simply will not allow people to die and suffer.

I guess (looking back) I did a fairly poor job of making that clear. So now I will.

I've heard numerous metaphors for this mess. I have yet to hear anything from either side that makes me believe that either system alone will achieve an end result that is appreciably better than the other once ALL factors are considered. Your allegory is tangentially just another in a long line of Democrat and Republican metaphors telling me to "pretend this pie represents what we spend on medical care".

It's apples vs. slightly larger apples, or slightly juicer apples, or apples of a different color. The health care "debate" is nothing more than a spite house erected by both political parties to fool us all into being angry about being served Pepsi when we wanted Coke.

Truthfully I find this whole debate of "all government is bad/good" and "all businesses are evil/good" to be both tiresome and illogical. In every sense the health care debate has become the infatuating hobby of those that cheer for political parties like one cheers for a football team. No one seems to mind actually spending the money , they just get impassioned when confronted with the prospect of handing it over to the huge bureaucratic group they don't approve of rather than the huge bureaucratic group they do approve of. Any discussion of this issue quickly degenerates to a pointless exchange of the relative merits of socialism versus corporate fascism, and the unending minutiae attached to whether it is better to do it "cheap and good" or "good and cheap". In that sense the health care debate is a microcosm of what is going to be the biggest challenge to this country. The current world economic situation IS the crucible in which we will either learn to stop wasting time debating issues in a way that is counterproductive and immature, or cede our leadership position to others that do not value or recognise our right to debate issues at all. With freedom comes responsibility - and the biggest responsibility is to ensure the viability of the system that gives us our freedom.

But I digress.

I remember when this whole fiasco first started (well, the most recent round during the election and presidency of Obama) and suddenly all the free market people said things like "we should just let business take care of this problem. The market will solve this". We have been under essentially the same privatized system since the early 70's - so when can we look for that to happen?

Well, never - because insurance companies are beholden to one group and one group only. The shareholders. Covering the sick, providing good customer service, and treating clients and workers fairly are only a means to an end, and the quality of those will always be subordinate to profit. Always. Sometimes this is good, and as recent history has clearly shown - sometimes it isn't.

Then there's medicare - which proves that you will never have enough money to pay for an entitlement/mandate ESPECIALLY when you do not account for profiteering and population/economic variances.

KmasterC - I get that a government program doesn't make money. Government programs are designed to solve a problem or provide a service. They are not designed to make money.

I'll say that again.

Government programs are not designed to make money.

And I'll go ahead and say that costing money does not necessarily hurt the economy if the net benefit to the society outweighs the cost in the eyes of our citizens. Do I think it will in this case? I really don't know. No one does, not even those people that scream at you regarding how it will or won't. It's a value judgement. Every Canadian and British person I talk to (and honestly I do talk to quite a few) LOVES their system and cannot imagine being under ours. In contrast - I just went through a serious surgery and frankly I am thankful for the excellent medical care Anthem provided me at the University of Virginia. I do feel either system WILL work if implemented in the right way. It's implementing either system in the right way that seems to be such a challenge for us, for a lot of reasons that brevity prevents me from going into.

At this point most conservatives probably suspect that I am in favor of a government program and I really am not...not totally. Honestly what I think would be best is some flavor of what we had with some level of oversight to make sure that insurance companies don't do things like throw people out the minute that they get some expensive catastrophic disease, combined with a TRUE safety net to ensure that we ALL will get the care we need. As I get older I am increasingly finding that the truth lies in the middle, furthest away from the shouting people.

The shouting people (people with strongly polarized political views that mirror the Republicrat political platforms) worry, impress, frighten, and amuse me. No group gets more indignant when you insinuate that possibly some idea different from theirs might work also. They prattle on about the flaws of the other idea while totally ignoring the flaws in their own. I do have a special place for conservatives because they are like Sith...you are either with them or against them. There's an extra dose of "manifest destiny" with conservatives - as if "Columbia" were still right there with them, even though we have no more "new frontier". They are the group that seemingly believes the illusion that somehow switching back to the health care system we had will transport us to a magical world where Norman Rockwellesque doctors cure every ailment and every hospital window looks on to a view from a Frederic Edwin Church painting. This is a false illusion. "What we had" was good in many ways and bad in others. What we have now will, if given time, be shown to suffer the same limitations.

And what remains is this: You simply cannot get around the moral imperative that a sick human being deserves compassion and the best care we can give them. You also cannot escape that this will cost money - and that cost will rise and fall (mostly rise) due to a multitude of factors, not just one.

We cannot pretend that people with catastrophic diseases that cost fortunes to treat are "someone else's problem". The true debate is how do we deal with that. Sadly, we have not heard much about it.

Posted on: 2/12/2011 9:23 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Party Machine
Joined:
4/22/2007 5:17 pm
From graffenwhor,germany
Posts: 514
Rd something I have read was the states used to have there own banks that each printed there own money. Up until the civil war when Abraham Lincoln made the green back and then made taxes on non green back so high they weren't worth anything so every one had to use them. But what if a state did something like that again ether the dollar would become worthless or it would become more valuable because it not being circulated. Idk tho cuz china wouldn't except a WV dollar and a new York dollor or they might but when trading globally it would be easier with one currency. But if each state had it's own but say like WV needs some lumber from brazil we would buy us dollars with WV dollars and then the us would buy that much worth of lumber for us. And say Illinois don't like the WV dollar but each state still does accept the us dollar so just go to an ATM and pull out some and u can spend it there.

It sounds kinda impractical but I do it everyday. When I go out into Germany they don't take u.s. But some places take visa and master card which my debit card it. That is like the state currency only some places out side the state takes it but it's accepted in the state. Where every where here takes the euro. It's like going from country to country. And when I go to the uk they'll take the pound euro and my card. And if u take ur money out of the state and can spend it. They ether keep it or exchange it if they keep it it makes that states inflation stay down if the exchange it that state has it and they could ether sale it back or the noe have a common currency with to trade with with that state. I'm pretty sure there Is laws against mote than one currency but I think it's a good idea

Zwaa
Lol u don't have to use big words when talkin politics. I got about 90% of them but u don't have to sound smart where just talkin.

But I'm glad u see they don't make money. And I agree everyone should be able to be taken care of. But as a country we can't afford it. My xbox just died, I paid for xbox live just 2 weeks ago I'm loosing money on that everyday. I also want a kinect it will give me a reason to buy a new one. That's about 450 I have more than enough money but I want to fly my girl out her before I deploy and take her around Germany so that money is already gone even tho it's sitting in my bank account. If I bought a new xbox and we had to sit in my room for 2 weeks or worst if I couldn't fly her over it would be irresponsible as what if I didn't come back there would be a new xbox go to waste and I didn't get to spend my last chance I could with the girl I love. Yes people do need to be taken care of but we just don't have the money for it. I mean hospitals can't turn down patents can they? Pass a bill that makes the hospital have a payment plan.

And if u read my post in the thread about healthcare it talks about what my mom went threw with her Medicare and me not having insurance growing up and I have posted several times how I think we need to get rid of political parties there not needed anymore and they have predetermind stances and the government needs to be case by case. Like take abortion I'm personally against it. But what other people do is up to them. But but i feel like if the girl is gonna die then it should be up to her

I'm an independent but I do have alot of conservative views lol even tho like my hole familie are democrats

Posted on: 2/13/2011 5:20 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7701
Quote:

KmasterC wrote:

Zwaa
Lol u don't have to use big words when talkin politics. I got about 90% of them but u don't have to sound smart where just talkin.


That's just how I roll

Quote:


But I'm glad u see they don't make money. And I agree everyone should be able to be taken care of. But as a country we can't afford it. My xbox just died, I paid for xbox live just 2 weeks ago I'm loosing money on that everyday. I also want a kinect it will give me a reason to buy a new one. That's about 450 I have more than enough money but I want to fly my girl out her before I deploy and take her around Germany so that money is already gone even tho it's sitting in my bank account. If I bought a new xbox and we had to sit in my room for 2 weeks or worst if I couldn't fly her over it would be irresponsible as what if I didn't come back there would be a new xbox go to waste and I didn't get to spend my last chance I could with the girl I love. Yes people do need to be taken care of but we just don't have the money for it. I mean hospitals can't turn down patents can they? Pass a bill that makes the hospital have a payment plan.


Two things. First, I note that there is a huge difference between a broken x-box and a person with cancer. One is a situation where you give up playing Halo. The second is a situation where you die.

Second. I just had a tumor removed. I have excellent medical insurance so it cost me about 150$, The bill was for around $28,000. If a person does not have medical insurance it is most likely because they do not have a job, or they have a low pay entry level job. Factoring out payments at 0% interest - my surgery over a 60 month term would be a monthly payment of roughly 450$. How is a person in a minimum wage job that is most likely on medical leave and potentially incapacitated due to ongoing related medical issues to pay 450$ a month?


Quote:
And if u read my post in the thread about healthcare it talks about what my mom went threw with her Medicare and me not having insurance growing up


and it was duly noted, respected, and responded to.

Quote:

and I have posted several times how I think we need to get rid of political parties there not needed anymore and they have predetermind stances and the government needs to be case by case. Like take abortion I'm personally against it. But what other people do is up to them. But but i feel like if the girl is gonna die then it should be up to her


but if we get rid of political parties then we only have one party...and we know what that means!

What I feel we need are more political parties so that the diversity of our opinions can be properly dealt with. The Republican party WAS a third party that supplanted the whigs as the principal opposition to the Democratic party.

Quote:
I'm an independent but I do have alot of conservative views lol even tho like my hole familie are democrats


I'll take that at face value. I know one thing that really gets my blood pressure up is when I disagree with a partisan and they tell me that I am kidding myself about being an independent, and that I am actually a (insert political party here). "Independent" has regrettably become the label we apply to ourselves when we don't fully endorse a current political party. Welcome to the club. Try not to shout :).


Posted on: 2/13/2011 10:25 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Interesting Read on Spending Under Obama
Pitt Hater
Joined:
6/26/2010 9:15 am
Posts: 2388

Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

joedaddyski wrote:
Short Economics lesson, for the drinkers of the Obama health care Kool Aid - Medicare and Medicaid - in fact have resulted in increased health care costs, period.
How - It is simple, the government (Medicare & Medicaid) only pays 1/4 or less of the going rate for a procedure therefore the added cost is sent down the line to the insured and uninsured that pay cash. See how simple that is.


joedaddy - you might want to actually educate yourself on health care reform as well as Medicare and Medicaid before you think about giving any lessons on those subjects. HCR does not create government-funded health care; it affects the relationships between private insurers and insureds. Medicare and Medicaid are partially-funded programs for certain citizens who qualify because of age, disability, etc. They are apples and oranges.

BTW - your premise that Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for rising health care costs is mistaken. The Kaiser foundation identifies the factors for rising health care costs in the link below:

http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Module ... sts/Background-Brief.aspx


The following was quoted from the source you provided.
Now read it and let me know how all that adds up. Your response and insult are obviously attempts to bring yourself to a level above the fold yet proves that you are no better equiped to understand this issue than the rest of the bleading heart librals that believe in utopian health care for all. By the way let's not forget about the other major reasons for rising costs - gread and profit.
Don't forget too - if we really want to fix this problem we need to talk about prevention, which by the way did make this list but it was not number one yet it was number 5 of a list of 7 things that were mentioned.
Please read and comprehend before you start pointing a finger.

Government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, account for a significant share of health care spending, but they have increased at a slower rate than private insurance. Medicare per capita spending has grown at a slightly lower rate, on average, than private health insurance spending, at about 6.8 vs. 7.1% annually respectively between 1998 and 2008. [3] Medicaid expenditures, similarly, have grown at slower rate than private spending, though enrollment in the program has increased during the current economic recession, which may result in increased Medicaid spending figures soon.


Posted on: 2/13/2011 11:07 am
_________________
montani semper liberi & est ratio liberalismi aegritudinis animi
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



« 1 (2) 3 4 5 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved