Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Socialized Medicine
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 12>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4711 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 12:23pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:



And you think your taxes would go up by more than $1,000 a month to have universal healthcare?

Are you high?

If you weren't so backwards, that would qualify as an argument for universal healthcare
 
 
So, if you buy something for $1,000 it costs $1,000.
 
 
If the government buys something worth $1,000 and "gives" it to me, it costs me less than $1,000?
 
And I'm backwards. Dude, you are so lost its not even worth pointing you in the right direction...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4711 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 12:19pm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/02/obama-officials-end-recession-near/
 
 
so much for Obama promise of not increasing taxes on anyone under $275,000, wait, $250,000, Hold on, $200,000... Rrrggh Biden said $170,000 per year...
 
Only six months in and he is going back on that promise. (cause everyone knows that no poor people smoke, and that wasn't really a "tax increase"...)
 

With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy.

"We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week." 

Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9176 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 12:16pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Between myself, and my company I pay over $1,000 a month for my family of 4's health care currently.
 


And you think your taxes would go up by more than $1,000 a month to have universal healthcare?

Are you high?

If you weren't so backwards, that would qualify as an argument for universal healthcare
Que pasa?


Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4711 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 12:13pm
Between myself, and my company I pay over $1,000 a month for my family of 4's health care currently.
 
I can't wait until Obamacare takes over and "lowers" my costs. They have such a great record of lowering costs of everything they do, and the way they handle medicare, and medicaid (oh wait, aren't they bankrupt... Never mind). Its going to make everything better.
 
I'm sure the following graph showing the new and improved layers of garbage (excuse me, I mean government intervention) will reduce my current monthly cost significantly... Right?...
 
 
 


Edited by FreeEnterprise - 03 August 2009 at 12:14pm
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9699 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 12:03pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I actually happened to be watching some news show on Fox yesterday and they had Karl Rove on. Some of the figures he was presenting were actually pretty interesting. I tried to find the video, but couldn't. Basically, after discounting non-U.S. citizens, and those making $50k or more, and some other factors, it came down to somthing like 2 or 3% not actually having viable health insurance. Sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through to change our entire healthcare system to absorb that small of a percentage. Something like 16 million in the 41 or 47 million figure apparently is represented by non-U.S. citizens. Should we really have to be insuring people that aren't here either legally or not citizens?


You left out the part about them not contributing while using up resources contributed by those here legally.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5669 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 11:59am
I actually happened to be watching some news show on Fox yesterday and they had Karl Rove on. Some of the figures he was presenting were actually pretty interesting. I tried to find the video, but couldn't. Basically, after discounting non-U.S. citizens, and those making $50k or more, and some other factors, it came down to somthing like 2 or 3% not actually having viable health insurance. Sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through to change our entire healthcare system to absorb that small of a percentage. Something like 16 million in the 41 or 47 million figure apparently is represented by non-U.S. citizens. Should we really have to be insuring people that aren't here either legally or not citizens?
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9699 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 11:56am
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Exactly. I don't get the point of it?


The point FE is trying to make is that the President is lying about a private option remaining in force once his plan is fully implemented.

Edited:  Because FE jumped in between postings (durnit FE!) and I had to add Jmac3's original post for this to make sense.


Edited by Mack - 03 August 2009 at 12:03pm
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4711 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 11:56am
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Exactly. I don't get the point of it?


 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9176 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 11:41am
Exactly. I don't get the point of it?


Que pasa?


Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9699 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 11:38am
It's pretty obvious that it is neither one.  It was presented as evidence that one of the goals of the current administration is to replace private healthcare completely with public healthcare.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9176 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 11:35am
Is that supposed to be an argument against universal healthcare or just an agreement video for people who already hate it?
Que pasa?


Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4711 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 10:04am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6481 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 July 2009 at 3:19pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act_of_1965
Back to Top
Frozen Balls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1, filter dodge, 1.28.10

Joined: 14 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5865 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frozen Balls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 10:22pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

To me that sounds like an argument against a fee for service pay system and favoring a flat rate reimbursement that would stop doctors from running redundant, expensive, slow or otherwise useless tests.
 
Yeah, the whole per-procedure reimbursement structure of the US system is another of the main issues.  Somehow we have managed to mostly avoid it so far.
 
But man is that an awful arrangement.  Creates unnecessary paperwork, encourages bad medicine, and runs up costs.
 
Arguably this is (IMO) the single greatest contributor to high healthcare costs.
 
 


Yea in my health econ course we talked about how insurance causes people to seek medical care even when it isn't really necessary. It also encourages doctors to indulge these people, and do things that cost money and aren't really important.

Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10728 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 9:39pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:


But man is that an awful arrangement.  Creates unnecessary paperwork, encourages bad medicine, and runs up costs.
We need a per disease payment with bonuses if cured IMO.

The bonuses that doctors receive in the UK for actually improving their patients overall health (quitting smoking, loosing weight, etc) is one of the strongest part of the UK NHS system.


I did a paper two years ago on the different types of socialized medicine throughout the world. By researching the differences, and boy were there differences, it definitely opened up to the multiple possibilities to health care reform. It also showed the ignorance of the American populace on the issue since a majority thinks a public health option means the gov will own the hospitals like the British system (yes I know there still are private ones).

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 8:59pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

To me that sounds like an argument against a fee for service pay system and favoring a flat rate reimbursement that would stop doctors from running redundant, expensive, slow or otherwise useless tests.
 
Yeah, the whole per-procedure reimbursement structure of the US system is another of the main issues.  Somehow we have managed to mostly avoid it so far.
 
But man is that an awful arrangement.  Creates unnecessary paperwork, encourages bad medicine, and runs up costs.
 
Arguably this is (IMO) the single greatest contributor to high healthcare costs.
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10728 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 8:53pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

So you're telling me Medicare and Medicaid are well run organizations?



I never said they were stingy. I said they dictate what they pay, when they pay, and how they pay, which in turn hurts not only the companies expecting payment, but the employees that did the work. Now imagine this not happening just for SOME people, but every single person, at every single hospital, nursing home, ambulance company, fire department and long-term care facility.

Just because it 'saves money' does not mean it's efficient or run well. It's quite obvious to all those with regular dealings in it, that they are not.







]
To me that sounds like an argument against a fee for service pay system and favoring a flat rate reimbursement that would stop doctors from running redundant, expensive, slow or otherwise useless tests.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14178 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 8:52pm
Yeah I wasn't just talking about the government run portion.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 8:52pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Where did I say I wanted to keep any form of federal government run healthcare?


I thought I spent the last 9 pages fighting that?
 
 
 
Government RUN, or government FUNDED...?
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2009 at 8:48pm
Where did I say I wanted to keep any form of federal government run healthcare?


I thought I spent the last 9 pages fighting that?

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.