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

Socialized Medicine

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 9101112>
Author
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 9:09pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

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...


No, because it will probably cost less than $1,000 a month in taxes.

Also, what is wrong with everyone having healthcare if it isn't costing you any extra money?

Explain to me how I am lost.

I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

I don't use $12,000 a year in medical bills. I am sure many people don't. Thus something doesn't actually cost $1,000. It cost less than that. You are just paying now in case something happens that does cost a ridiculous amount of money.

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.
Hence the reason it is paid for with taxes. Yes they will not be able to magically afford it, but if everyone was taxed I am sure it would be less than what it costs to insure a family these days. They would lose more to the government every week, but be receiving more(healthcare) for less than insurance. I don't see why that makes people that can afford healthcare against it either. It doesn't hurt you.
 
If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.
Everyone is paying for people who don't have insurance now anyway. They are just unable to get it themselves if they are working. Noone is denied care, and if you have a child or are a drug addict(at least in my state) health insurance is easy to come by. It is the people who work that can't afford it for themselves, but are still paying for those types of people who lose.

If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for it.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 9:42pm
Hypothetical: Joe Healthy doe not have health insurance. He lives a healthy lifestyle and pays of any and all GP care out of pocket. Now under the new plan it will be manditory that he purchases health insurance.
Example 2: From what I understand those already in the VA health care system and having had paid for thier "benifits" usually in something more precious than dollars, will also now be required to purchase public health insurance under penalty of law. One of the "benifits" of military service is recieving free healthcare for any and all service connected issues, such as wounds from combat, physcological services resulting from combat, injuries recieved in the performance of any and all military duties, combat and non-combat. So that is no longer a "perc" of service, not like lifetime free medical care for congress (who have excempted themselves from any program they will develope) for as little as one term of service in congress (no that is fair).
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 9:59pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Hypothetical: Joe Healthy doe not have health insurance. He lives a healthy lifestyle and pays of any and all GP care out of pocket. Now under the new plan it will be manditory that he purchases health insurance.
No comment just because I believe we should have universal(which yes I suppose he would be paying) not a system like Mass. where we are required health insurance or taxed.

Example 2: From what I understand those already in the VA health care system and having had paid for thier "benifits" usually in something more precious than dollars, will also now be required to purchase public health insurance under penalty of law. I don't know the specifics, but I doubt it. I am sure there are exemptions that would allow you to not be fined/taxed for not having it. I only don't know the specifics because I am not reasearching current plans. I only argue for the idea of OMG SOCIALISM.

One of the "benifits" of military service is recieving free healthcare for any and all service connected issues, such as wounds from combat, physcological services resulting from combat, injuries recieved in the performance of any and all military duties, combat and non-combat. So that is no longer a "perc" of service, Does it matter if it is a perk of the service anymore? All current and former military will still be able to receive said services.

not like lifetime free medical care for congress (who have excempted themselves from any program they will develope) for as little as one term of service in congress (no that is fair). I don't know anything about the healthcare congress uses. I know on numerous occasions I have seen PP explain to you that they use the same healthcare available to all federal employees though. There is no special congress health care


Edited by jmac3 - 03 August 2009 at 9:59pm
Que pasa?


Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 August 2009 at 10:14pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Hypothetical: Joe Healthy doe not have health insurance. He lives a healthy lifestyle and pays of any and all GP care out of pocket. Now under the new plan it will be manditory that he purchases health insurance.


Because when Mr. Healthy gets clipped on the side of the road while jogging by someone who wasn't paying attention while driving, and ends up rupturing his spleen and breaking both legs and pelvis, and sent to the hospital to get all fixed up, he is going to rack up a $10k plus hospital bill.

Mr. Healthy ends up not being able to afford to pay for it, so the hospital has to fix him up on their dollar and distribute the lost revenue via price increases to the other customers.


Again, I feel like the anti-reform arguments are stuck on loop. We've gone over this before.




Edited by agentwhale007 - 03 August 2009 at 10:15pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




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: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 12:14am
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

I don't use $12,000 a year in medical bills. I am sure many people don't. Thus something doesn't actually cost $1,000. It cost less than that. You are just paying now in case something happens that does cost a ridiculous amount of money.

The $1000 a month is just a nice round sum that is easy to work with.  My point is that if the government takes in less than it is spending, it will increase the deficit.  This has actually become an issue between the President and his advisers in recent days.  (Specifically raising taxes on the middle class.)

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.

Hence the reason it is paid for with taxes. Yes they will not be able to magically afford it, but if everyone was taxed I am sure it would be less than what it costs to insure a family these days.

How do you figure that?  Let me offer a hypothetical situation.  (Granted, it is vague, but given the vagaries related to the current health care discussions at the national level it is the best I can do.) 
  • There are people who can't afford health care.
  • There are people who can afford it and they currently pay for it.
  • The government plans to make health care available to everyone.
  • This means that you now have additional expenditures but, because the people who can't afford it still can't afford it, the additional money must come from somewhere.
  • Whether this somewhere is taxes on individuals or businesses or some other form of collection, the expense is eventually passed along to those who are already paying for their own healthcare.  I really don't see anyway that costs won't be increased for some.
  • The government could just charge less than the value of the service without raising taxes, but this would have a negative impact on the deficit.
    • An additional factor that will probably raise costs is the requirement that pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying factors.  (This disqualification is one of the ways that the private industry reduces costs to keep prices down.  Doing away with it can only increase expenses.  I should point out that I agree with this, but it is a cost factor that has to be considered.)
They would lose more to the government every week, but be receiving more(healthcare) for less than insurance. I don't see why that makes people that can afford healthcare against it either. It doesn't hurt you.

But it does, maybe not me specifically, but someone has to take up the slack for those who are being subsidized.
 
If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.

Everyone is paying for people who don't have insurance now anyway. They are just unable to get it themselves if they are working. Noone is denied care, and if you have a child or are a drug addict(at least in my state) health insurance is easy to come by. It is the people who work that can't afford it for themselves, but are still paying for those types of people who lose.

I think you just provided a very good argument against national heath care.  (I take the above statement to be your explanation of how the "leeches" are subsidized by others.) 

If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for it.
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: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 8:02am
Want to lower automobile costs? Get rid of the union...
 
Want to lower health care costs? Tort reform... (for all of you educated in public schools, that means eliminating "windfall" lawyer payouts)
 
But, both the union and the lawyers are major spokes in the democrat party. So they get things done to benefit them. (gotta pay for those votes...)
 
 
 
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: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 6:31pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

I don't use $12,000 a year in medical bills. I am sure many people don't. Thus something doesn't actually cost $1,000. It cost less than that. You are just paying now in case something happens that does cost a ridiculous amount of money.

The $1000 a month is just a nice round sum that is easy to work with.  My point is that if the government takes in less than it is spending, it will increase the deficit.  This has actually become an issue between the President and his advisers in recent days.  (Specifically raising taxes on the middle class.)

But how will it take in less than what it is spending? I am sure a number could be found. Much like insurance companies and hospitals already do.

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.

Hence the reason it is paid for with taxes. Yes they will not be able to magically afford it, but if everyone was taxed I am sure it would be less than what it costs to insure a family these days.

How do you figure that?  Let me offer a hypothetical situation.  (Granted, it is vague, but given the vagaries related to the current health care discussions at the national level it is the best I can do.) 
  • There are people who can't afford health care.
  • There are people who can afford it and they currently pay for it.
  • The government plans to make health care available to everyone.
  • This means that you now have additional expenditures but, because the people who can't afford it still can't afford it, the additional money must come from somewhere.
  • Whether this somewhere is taxes on individuals or businesses or some other form of collection, the expense is eventually passed along to those who are already paying for their own healthcare.  I really don't see anyway that costs won't be increased for some.
  • The government could just charge less than the value of the service without raising taxes, but this would have a negative impact on the deficit.
    • An additional factor that will probably raise costs is the requirement that pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying factors.  (This disqualification is one of the ways that the private industry reduces costs to keep prices down.  Doing away with it can only increase expenses.  I should point out that I agree with this, but it is a cost factor that has to be considered.)
They would lose more to the government every week, but be receiving more(healthcare) for less than insurance. I don't see why that makes people that can afford healthcare against it either. It doesn't hurt you.

But it does, maybe not me specifically, but someone has to take up the slack for those who are being subsidized.

As I have said, some people may not be able to afford $1,000 a month to insure their family of 4. Say taxes had to go up $300 a month on individuals to cover everyone. People who couldn't afford the $1,000 are now being taxed for it($300 a piece for each parent), and it is $400 cheaper. This would also make businesses not have to pay part of the health insurance costs. Hypothetically this could raise salaries or lower other costs. Yes I am horrible at explaining but it is something that could happen.
 
If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.

Everyone is paying for people who don't have insurance now anyway. They are just unable to get it themselves if they are working. Noone is denied care, and if you have a child or are a drug addict(at least in my state) health insurance is easy to come by. It is the people who work that can't afford it for themselves, but are still paying for those types of people who lose.

I think you just provided a very good argument against national heath care.  (I take the above statement to be your explanation of how the "leeches" are subsidized by others.) 

They are subsidized anyway.  If a way was found that these people could be subsidized without current insured spending more money(I won't say without raising taxes), and without increasing the deficit would you have an issue with a universal healthcare plan?

If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for 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: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


I am not sure what FE was referring to but reviewing the above posts got me confused enough to point out the following.

If something costs $1000, but the government collects less than $1000 in taxes, that is called "increasing the deficit" and is generally not a good thing.

I don't use $12,000 a year in medical bills. I am sure many people don't. Thus something doesn't actually cost $1,000. It cost less than that. You are just paying now in case something happens that does cost a ridiculous amount of money.

The $1000 a month is just a nice round sum that is easy to work with.  My point is that if the government takes in less than it is spending, it will increase the deficit.  This has actually become an issue between the President and his advisers in recent days.  (Specifically raising taxes on the middle class.)

But how will it take in less than what it is spending? I am sure a number could be found. Much like insurance companies and hospitals already do.

Exactly; it can't take in less than it is spending.  Since costs will go up (by adding additional subscribers) funding will have to go up as well.  Someone will have to pay those costs . . . and it won't be the people who already can't afford their own medical care. (You need to hurry up and admit I'm right; we're running out of readable colors.)

In reference to the final question; one of the basic arguments in favor of government health care is that some people can't afford it but should still have it.  If these people are given such health care that does not magically make them able to afford it but someone has to pay for it.

Hence the reason it is paid for with taxes. Yes they will not be able to magically afford it, but if everyone was taxed I am sure it would be less than what it costs to insure a family these days.

How do you figure that?  Let me offer a hypothetical situation.  (Granted, it is vague, but given the vagaries related to the current health care discussions at the national level it is the best I can do.) 
  • There are people who can't afford health care.
  • There are people who can afford it and they currently pay for it.
  • The government plans to make health care available to everyone.
  • This means that you now have additional expenditures but, because the people who can't afford it still can't afford it, the additional money must come from somewhere.
  • Whether this somewhere is taxes on individuals or businesses or some other form of collection, the expense is eventually passed along to those who are already paying for their own healthcare.  I really don't see anyway that costs won't be increased for some.
  • The government could just charge less than the value of the service without raising taxes, but this would have a negative impact on the deficit.
    • An additional factor that will probably raise costs is the requirement that pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying factors.  (This disqualification is one of the ways that the private industry reduces costs to keep prices down.  Doing away with it can only increase expenses.  I should point out that I agree with this, but it is a cost factor that has to be considered.)
They would lose more to the government every week, but be receiving more(healthcare) for less than insurance. I don't see why that makes people that can afford healthcare against it either. It doesn't hurt you.

But it does, maybe not me specifically, but someone has to take up the slack for those who are being subsidized.

As I have said, some people may not be able to afford $1,000 a month to insure their family of 4. Say taxes had to go up $300 a month on individuals to cover everyone. People who couldn't afford the $1,000 are now being taxed for it($300 a piece for each parent), and it is $400 cheaper.

If we're just going to throw out random numbers, we can make anything work.  However, we are dealing with a cost structure and we can say maybe it will be cheaper, but there is nothing in changing from a private to public health care structure that will make it so.  To over simplify, health care insurance costs are based on determining what needs to be paid for the company to take care of an individual's expected healthcare expenditures plus provide for administration reimbursement and profits for the company involved.  While removing the profit motive may add some level of efficiency it will not automatically make everyone able to pay for the level of insurance that they actually use.  It should be noted that to some extent, the current healthcare system is based on the subsidizing of the unhealthy by the healthy.  The averaging that the insurance companies do results in someone who doesn't use their benefits very often paying for someone who does.  The difference is that everyone is paying something for those benefits.  Now, if you take the same pool of people and add everyone who can't pay for health insurance (40+ million if I remember right) you have just expanded the benefit usage pool without expanding the benefit payment pool.  Something has to give.  It may be a decrease in the level of care, in which case those who were already paying will not pay more, but they will get less service for the same price; or, prices will have to be raised to maintain the same standard of service.  In this case, those that couldn't afford healthcare will still not be able to, so such a price increase would have to be disproportionally given to those who were already paying for their health care.  If this happens, they would have the same level of care, but would end up paying more for it.

This would also make businesses not have to pay part of the health insurance costs. Hypothetically this could raise salaries or lower other costs. Yes I am horrible at explaining but it is something that could happen.

 
If it is paid for by the government, then essentially someone who has a better income is subsidizing (or paying for) it.  That is the point I believe FE was trying to make:  Nothing is free, if the government raises taxes to pay for healthcare for those who can't, then everyone else is paying for it.

Everyone is paying for people who don't have insurance now anyway. They are just unable to get it themselves if they are working. Noone is denied care, and if you have a child or are a drug addict(at least in my state) health insurance is easy to come by. It is the people who work that can't afford it for themselves, but are still paying for those types of people who lose.

I think you just provided a very good argument against national heath care.  (I take the above statement to be your explanation of how the "leeches" are subsidized by others.) 

They are subsidized anyway.  If a way was found that these people could be subsidized without current insured spending more money(I won't say without raising taxes), and without increasing the deficit would you have an issue with a universal healthcare plan?

By leaving the raising of taxes off of the table in that question you are acknowledging my point that such a plan pretty much has to increase the costs of somone in order to work.  With that said, I am not in favor of a piecemeal, poorly thought out plan, which is what I believe that the government is going to force down our throats.  If I was in charge, I would not mind a certain level of universal care, but those who received free care would be given a different level of care from those who worked and paid their way.  Problems resulting from poor lifestyle choices would receive very little sympathy.  I believe the government should act as an advocate for consumers as opposed to providing the healthcare.  Such intervention, done properly, would help prevent unnecessary procedures and overbilling.  (Although, given the success of Medicare with this I could be overly optimistic.)  I think tort reform has to be a part of any serious overhaul of our medical system.  (I have no problem punishing a company that knowingly sold a defective product; however, I feel that companies that correctly got their product certified/tested in good faith and it took 20+ years for a harmful side effect to show up should not be punished.  (This would be a case where the government, which probably approved the drug/treatment in question, should ensure that treatment related to the issues caused was paid for.  It is not a case where the unfortunate victim deserves to be made independently wealthy.)  I don't have the answer, but I know a bad idea when I see it.  One indication of the problems with the current plans being floated would be to consider the mixed messages coming from the White House and Treasury.

If the government puts the responsibility on businesses, then they just raise their prices and everyone else is still paying for it.

Edited addition:  I am not against additional taxes that would support ensuring everyone under 18 has medical care or programs that extend that care to the age of 22 for those attending college.  I am against subsidizing people who need to take some responsibility for their own lives.


Edited by Mack - 04 August 2009 at 8:56pm
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 8:56pm
You guys should really start splitting quotes up. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




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: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 8:58pm
No, it's more fun this way.  Tongue
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 9:32pm
Mack, I wasn't leaving raising taxes "off the table". I am saying taxes wuld HAVE to be raised. I just believe that a budget could be worked out that people would be paying those taxes but still coming out paying less than they were previously for insurance.
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: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 10:36pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Mack, I wasn't leaving raising taxes "off the table". I am saying taxes wuld HAVE to be raised. I just believe that a budget could be worked out that people would be paying those taxes but still coming out paying less than they were previously for insurance.


And I don't believe that is possible.  Or, to put it more correctly, those that can't afford it now will possibly end up paying less (which is more than the nothing they are paying now), but the remainder will have to be subsidized by others.  (Which would be paying more.)
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: 05 August 2009 at 7:05pm
Man, I go away for a couple of days, and all hell breaks loose...
 
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Let me offer a hypothetical situation.  (Granted, it is vague, but given the vagaries related to the current health care discussions at the national level it is the best I can do.) 
  • There are people who can't afford health care.
  • There are people who can afford it and they currently pay for it.
  • The government plans to make health care available to everyone.
  • This means that you now have additional expenditures but, because the people who can't afford it still can't afford it, the additional money must come from somewhere.
  • Whether this somewhere is taxes on individuals or businesses or some other form of collection, the expense is eventually passed along to those who are already paying for their own healthcare.  I really don't see anyway that costs won't be increased for some.
  • The government could just charge less than the value of the service without raising taxes, but this would have a negative impact on the deficit.
    • An additional factor that will probably raise costs is the requirement that pre-existing conditions are not disqualifying factors.  (This disqualification is one of the ways that the private industry reduces costs to keep prices down.  Doing away with it can only increase expenses.  I should point out that I agree with this, but it is a cost factor that has to be considered.)
 
First off, you guys need to stop the gay pride parade posting.  Very headache-inducing.
 
On points - the highlighted bullet is worth, um, highlighting.  Because, as has been pointed out before, the government already IS providing healthcare to everyone.  We already HAVE socialized medicine.  We just have the worst and most idiotic socialized healthcare of all - in the sense that the government is now the provider of last resort, but does not provide any pre-emergency care.  That pretty much guarantees unnecessarily high healthcare costs.  It is certainly not the only cost, but it is a big one.
 
We could cut our healthcare costs quite a bit by not letting anybody into the ER without an insurance card.  But since I don't think that is on the table, we might as well get our money's worth and pay for some upfront care to lower the back-end costs.
 
 
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Mack, I wasn't leaving raising taxes "off the table". I am saying taxes wuld HAVE to be raised. I just believe that a budget could be worked out that people would be paying those taxes but still coming out paying less than they were previously for insurance.


And I don't believe that is possible.  Or, to put it more correctly, those that can't afford it now will possibly end up paying less (which is more than the nothing they are paying now), but the remainder will have to be subsidized by others.  (Which would be paying more.)
 
I would suggest that not only is it possible, but it is almost inevitable. 
 
Right now, the US healthcare system is hideously inefficient, from a medical perspective.  This medical inefficiency translates directly into unnecessarily high costs.
 
The causes of this medical inefficiency are many - service-based payment structures, pre-existing condition cutoffs, employment-based insurance, multiple alternate (and incompatible) insurance providers, a lack of emphasis on preventive care and "wellness," a willingness to spend disproportionately on end-of-life care, excess machinery, ridiculous doctor/patient ratios, and, yes, lack of true universal access to healthcare.
 
I don't know that we have to have true universal coverage to fix the problem, but it certainly is a readily identifiable contributing factor.
 
 
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Want to lower health care costs? Tort reform... (for all of you educated in public schools, that means eliminating "windfall" lawyer payouts)
 
 
Another bogeyman.  While the entre US legal system is arguably a major contributor to a variety of costs (including healthcare), but this common claim just isn't true.
 
Think about it.  "Windfalls," almost by definition, are rare.  They are so rare, in fact, that they are but a drop in the bucket.  Overwhelmingly, the big payouts are for really ugly cases, and I suspect we as a society are not willing to give $50k to the guy who just had the wrong leg amputated and call it a day.  Lots of press is given to cases that appear out of whack - and they appear out of whack because they are rare.
 
I am not saying that "tort reform" is necessarily a bad idea, but I am saying that it would not make a meaningful difference in US healthcare costs.
 


Edited by Peter Parker - 05 August 2009 at 7:06pm

"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: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2009 at 11:43pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:



I am not saying that "tort reform" is necessarily a bad idea, but I am saying that it would not make a meaningful difference in US healthcare costs.

Typical lawyer who doesn't even try litigation cases. You lawyers are all the same..

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: 06 August 2009 at 12:05am
Heh - I certainly do try to stay away from courtrooms. 
 
But if you want to talk legal reform, let's look at the millions of dollars spent on legal fees by health insurance carriers, reinsurers, backoffice providers, intermediaries, clearinghouses - suing each other.
 
Now THAT is expensive stuff.  Specialty litigation is obnoxiously expensive.  And it adds nothing to the bottom line (for the companies, that is - it goes straight to the bottom line of what you pay in premiums).
 
You want to reduce the impact of litigation on healthcare costs?  Reduce the number of players in the field, by streamlining the system.

"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
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 12:07am
Word.< id="gwProxy" ="">< ="jsCall;" id="jsProxy" ="">
Back to Top
pepprdog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Zeus of the Mod Squad

Joined: 07 June 2002
Location: Seychelles
Status: Offline
Points: 436471
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pepprdog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 12:57am
Whoa!!!!!! Tort reform IS an issue for all doctors. Insurance premiums are outrageous, frivolous lawsuits are rampant and in order to avoid being taken to court for not doing an unnecessary test the bills are inflated in order to do their best to stay out of the legal system. Do you have any idea what it costs a doctor to have to leave their office in order to go to court? They canít close it so the employees are on the payroll while no income is being produced. In order to further the plan the lawyers will get the doctor committed to the court date and right before that date and sometime the day of court, have it changed, usually several times.
Donít you wonder about Sokolov and other nationally advertising ilk lawyers? You donít see how lawyers make millions tearing at the medical professionals, drug companies and hospitals? You donít see how this will make a difference in healthcare costs? I can tell many horror stories about the way the lawyers have treated many doctors, I personally know, in order to get a settlement when the physician has done absolutely nothing wrong.
Before you say too much, my father is an MD, my wife is an MD and my son plans on going to Medical School...... against our advice and I've been around longer than OS.
You guys that are all for socializing our healthcare need to talk to people that have actually been involved with Canadian or European medicine, especially the older ones. It is NOT what it is here, no where close. You think they have such a great system, you need to do more research. You want a degraded system, put the government in charge.
Remember, there has never been a modern major government project that has come in at or under cost projections.......... they always estimate WAY too low. Heaven forbid a politician tell the truth about real costs.
   Also think about the huge bureaucratic monster that will be needed to run this project..... Again something always underestimated or not figured in the initial cost estimates. They certainly can't run this with available medically trained, educated, government employees. Now weíll have a new, untrained huge bureaucracy at government wages on top of the system already in place and this is supposed to be cost efficient enough to save money and make things work more smoothly for the patient. History teaches us otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the systems needs a bunch of fixing but turning it over to a bunch of bureaucrats is not the way to go.....


Edited by pepprdog - 06 August 2009 at 1:03am

NRA Certified;Range Safety officer
NRA Certified Instructor:     
Basic Pistol-Home Firearm Safety-Ohio Concealed Carry
"Refuse to be a victim"
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 1:46am
woah, look who the cat dragged in ^^ :)

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:



First off, you guys need to stop the gay pride parade posting.† Very headache-inducing.



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: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 2:54am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

First off, you guys need to stop the gay pride parade posting.  Very headache-inducing.


Durn liberals . . .



. . . tryin' to limit muh freedom of ex-press-shun.







Ohhh . . . and waaaaah! Big smile
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 12:42pm
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.


-Thomas Jefferson



Written by Dr. Dave Janda    

Thursday, 23 July 2009


As a physician who has authored books on preventative health care, I was given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner at The Capitol Building in Washington last Friday (7/17).

The presentation was entitled Health Care Reform, The Power & Profit of Prevention, and I was gratified that it was well received.

In preparation for the presentation, I read the latest version of "reform" as authored by The Obama Administration and supported by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Here is the link to the 1,018 page document:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf ;

Let me summarize just a few salient points of the above plan. First, however, it should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on The ObamaCare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: Consuming this product is hazardous to your health.

The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventing health care need whatever. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.

The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board "will approve or reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment."

Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer.....dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your coffin.

Oh, you say this could never happen? Sorry.... this is the same model they use in Britain.

The plan mandates that there will be little or no advanced treatments to be available in the future. It creates The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research, the purpose of which is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." Yes, this will be the law.

The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator For Health Information and Technology.

This " coordinator" will "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." It goes on to say....."Doctors and hospitals not adhering to guidelines will face penalties."

According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment.

So according to The ObamaCare Plan....if your doctor saves your life you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.

Section 102 has the Orwellian title, "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g., if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal.

When Mr. Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible, a blogger from Maine referenced an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance.

He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" Mr. Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."

Then there is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner.

This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care." It is no wonder The Obama Administration does not like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the "enemy" as people would live longer.

I rest my case. The ObamaCare Plan is hazardous to the health of every American.

After I finished my Capitol Hill presentation, I was asked by a Congressman in the question-answer session: "I'll be doing a number of network interviews on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan what should I answer."

The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, sad but truthful. I told him that one word is FASCIST.

Then I added, "I hope you'll have the courage to use that word, Congressman. No other word is more appropriate."

Dr. Dave Janda, MD, is an orthopedic surgeon, and a world-recognized expert on the prevention of sports injuries, particularly in children. His website is noinjury.com.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 9101112>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.