Health bill will hold down costs for 20 years... What's the new excuse?

[shadow9d9]

At least we finally agree on sometime.

I need to learn that when an opposing persona online refuses to offer a single shred of cited evidence, I am wasting my time.

Facts have a liberal bias.

 

[xj0hnx]

You make an assumption about my position based on what the "left" has done.. however, it doesn't apply to me.

Don't feel so self important, you are hardly what I base my assumptions on, you're just a cookie cutter of the rest like you. You whine and cry about spending this, and that until it's something you are personally vested in, and then it's just the most important thing in the world, and the cost to others is meaningless next to the benefit to you.

 

[shadow9d9]

Don't feel so self important, you are hardly what I base my assumptions on, you're just a cookie cutter of the rest like you. You whine and cry about spending this, and that until it's something you are personally vested in, and then it's just the most important thing in the world, and the cost to others is meaningless next to the benefit to you.

I am glad you admit that I was right about the lack of a left in this country for my stated reasons.

 

[charrison]

I need to learn that when an opposing persona online refuses to offer a single shred of cited evidence, I am wasting my time.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Makes it easier when you ignore anything that counters your claims as well.

 

[shadow9d9]

Makes it easier when you ignore anything that counters your claims as well.

Just quote one of your citations... good luck!

 

[charrison]

Just quote one of your citations... good luck!

Why you have already ignored what was posted.

 

[nobodyknows]

Stop getting in the way of their "Republicans, and profit are evil" schtick.

Now I understand, you've been brainwashed.

 

[nobodyknows]

So far you have debunked nothing.

Pot, kettle, black

 

[shadow9d9]

Why you have already ignored what was posted.

Haha, what are you, 7? What a copout.

Man up and admit you didn't post a shred of evidence for any of your bogus claims. It is right there for all to see. You never linked any support for your "arguments."

 

[xj0hnx]

Now I understand, you've been brainwashed.

Hardly, the partisan hackery is ridiculous.

 

[shira]

America was not built on the backs of Government, Lawyers, or Insurance Agents. It was built on the backs of entrenuers, business men, farmers,.

That Government, Lawyers and Insurance Agents think they can grab a huge portion of our income in the name of "health care" is outrageous.

It's not even our income they are after now, it's our children's.

This "them and us" fantasy gets you all stirred up, doesn't it? Feel GOOD to be outraged that "they" are taking "my" money.

Except that "our" money is already being taken for health care, and the changes being proposed will, if anything, reduce the total amount taken.

You see, whether people are insured or not, they use health care services. And those services are paid for by us, either directly with tax dollars, or indirectly in the form of higher fees (to subsidize the cost of covering the uninsured) that are passed on to those of us that DO pay out-of-pocket for services or who pay higher insurance premiums and co-pays.

So, you can pay the current way or you can pay the new way. You'll be paying regardless.

 

[Zorkorist]

I see what you are saying, but what you are missing is the whole NEW level of bureaucracy that is involved. True, there is a whole lot of bureaucracy today, but you cannot deny that there will be a HUGE addition to that bureaucracy with this plan.

Additionally, this bureaucracy is the U.S. Government. These are the people, the only people, that can, say, take your home by force. Or, say, take you by force. Or, say, take your money by force.

While a hospital can sue you, bankrupt you, etc., they can't take you away, ha ha, ho ho...

 

[rchiu]

This "them and us" fantasy gets you all stirred up, doesn't it? Feel GOOD to be outraged that "they" are taking "my" money.

Except that "our" money is already being taken for health care, and the changes being proposed will, if anything, reduce the total amount taken.

You see, whether people are insured or not, they use health care services. And those services are paid for by us, either directly with tax dollars, or indirectly in the form of higher fees (to subsidize the cost of covering the uninsured) that are passed on to those of us that DO pay out-of-pocket for services or who pay higher insurance premiums and co-pays.

So, you can pay the current way or you can pay the new way. You'll be paying regardless.

show me the "new" way is going to reduce the total amount taken with some quantifiable number and not your imagination. How do you know every single one of those uninsured people doesn't pay out of their pocket? How do you know they don't have deals with their doctors to by pass insurance company (read articles how some doctors have arrangement with their patient with all you can get care with fix monthly payment without going through insurance) How do you know that those uninsured people don't go to doctors until absolutely necessary before and now that we pay for their insurance, they go to the doctor for every little things because they are now covered.

Bottom line, the proposal is not about saving money, it cost $850 billion more than current system. The government have to make up that hole by taxing people, which may or may not materialize. This is nothing more than a new social program so some liberal can say yeah America is a great country, everyone has health insurance...blah blah blah, paid for by working people who do their part, work and get health coverage.

 

[Zorkorist]

Except, it's not paid for... it will add to our already overwhelming deficit.

Absolutely no good can come from this.

 

[charrison]

Haha, what are you, 7? What a copout.

Man up and admit you didn't post a shred of evidence for any of your bogus claims. It is right there for all to see. You never linked any support for your "arguments."

Why dont you admit that you have not responded to single thing I have said.

But first let me say, I agree that there needs to be some regulation. The example of people having the insurace plans cut for silly reasons needs work. People that get insurance and play by the rules should not be treated in this manner.

The article you posted about insurance costs in washington showed what is wrong with over regulation. The govt basicaly regulated profit out of the industry, driving profits down the 34 cents/policy/month. At which point they stopped enrolling people into plans and force the government to reregulate( I assume the started talking about dropping all coverage and leaving the state). After the rules were reregulated profits went to $18/month/policy. I dont know what profits were before the initial regulation, but I would not be surprised if they were close to this figure.

Is $18/month/policy excessive profits on a policy that no doubt thousands of dollar of year?
Is 34 cents/month/policy far profits for providing such service?

You complain about insurance companies making too much money, but you want a 3rd party involved in every health care transaction, no matter how trivial. Do you think there will ever be any cost control when a 3rd party is paying all the bills?

What impact do you think govt price controls will have on service availability. Do you think it will do any other than decrease?

Profits are not evil and actually required for market of any kind to work. Remove profits and you remove peoples desire to innovate and do things better and cheaper.

 

[shadow9d9]

Why dont you admit that you have not responded to single thing I have said.

But first let me say, I agree that there needs to be some regulation. The example of people having the insurace plans cut for silly reasons needs work. People that get insurance and play by the rules should not be treated in this manner.

The article you posted about insurance costs in washington showed what is wrong with over regulation. The govt basicaly regulated profit out of the industry, driving profits down the 34 cents/policy/month. At which point they stopped enrolling people into plans and force the government to reregulate( I assume the started talking about dropping all coverage and leaving the state). After the rules were reregulated profits went to $18/month/policy. I dont know what profits were before the initial regulation, but I would not be surprised if they were close to this figure.

Is $18/month/policy excessive profits on a policy that no doubt thousands of dollar of year?
Is 34 cents/month/policy far profits for providing such service?

You complain about insurance companies making too much money, but you want a 3rd party involved in every health care transaction, no matter how trivial. Do you think there will ever be any cost control when a 3rd party is paying all the bills?

What impact do you think govt price controls will have on service availability. Do you think it will do any other than decrease?

Profits are not evil and actually required for market of any kind to work. Remove profits and you remove peoples desire to innovate and do things better and cheaper.

Why don't you admit that despite me giving about 10 cited sources, you bring 0 evidence to the table and expect people to "debate" with you... Don't expect me to give evidence... just trust my word!

Profits at the expense of peoples' lives are evil.. and without profits, every other first world country pays half what we do and everyone is covered.

 

[brblx]

Don't expect me to give evidence... just trust my word!

works for fox news.

 

[Carmen813]

Why don't you admit that despite me giving about 10 cited sources, you bring 0 evidence to the table and expect people to "debate" with you... Don't expect me to give evidence... just trust my word!

Profits at the expense of peoples' lives are evil.. and without profits, every other first world country pays half what we do and everyone is covered.

But that's only because humans who aren't Americans are only half-people!

 

[rudder]

There is a lot of muck in this thread to wade through... so would the OP kindly remind us how Obamacare will save money?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/obamacares-cost-could-top-6-trillion/

Some groups estimate the costs at $6 trillion over a decade... a tad higher than white house projected $1 trillion.... once you realize all the budget gimmicks to hide the true cost.

 

[brblx]

imo, this is why it's all or nothing. you're right, these shitty 'compromise' bills will probably preserve our ridiculous healthcare costs while adding another facet of spending.

single payer will cut costs. period. you can make the bullshit quality of care arguments, but i'm not buying it. we're paying trillions a year for substandard care, and there's just no way to defend that.

 

[shadow9d9]

There is a lot of muck in this thread to wade through... so would the OP kindly remind us how Obamacare will save money?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/obamacares-cost-could-top-6-trillion/

Some groups estimate the costs at $6 trillion over a decade... a tad higher than white house projected $1 trillion.... once you realize all the budget gimmicks to hide the true cost.

"Some groups" = conservative think tanks...

CBO projected 1 trillion.

"Obamacare" doesn't exist, since he is not constructing the bill.

Next?

 

[Fern]

imo, this is why it's all or nothing. you're right, these shitty 'compromise' bills will probably preserve our ridiculous healthcare costs while adding another facet of spending.

single payer will cut costs. period. you can make the bullshit quality of care arguments, but i'm not buying it. we're paying trillions a year for substandard care, and there's just no way to defend that.

No one, anywhere, has yet adequately explained why this country's cost are higher than others.

Every theory advanced so far as to why our health care costs are so high has been shot down. High doctors' fees? Nah, just a few percent. Insurance company profits? Nah, just a few percent. Tort lawyers? Same thing.

Until we know why our costs are higher, crafting a HC bill that is supposed to lower costs is absurd.

You seem convinced a single payer system is the answer, but how a government monopoly solves unidentified problems remains unanswered.

IMO, so far the whole process has been back-asswards. Deciding upon the solution before identifying the cause of the problem is stupid.

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

No one, anywhere, has yet adequately explained why this country's cost are higher than others.

Every theory advanced so far as to why our health care costs are so high has been shot down. High doctors' fees? Nah, just a few percent. Insurance company profits? Nah, just a few percent. Tort lawyers? Same thing.

Until we know why our costs are higher, crafting a HC bill that is supposed to lower costs is absurd.

You seem convinced a single payer system is the answer, but how a government monopoly solves unidentified problems remains unanswered.

IMO, so far the whole process has been back-asswards. Deciding upon the solution before identifying the cause of the problem is stupid.

Fern

It's not really true. Counting insurance companies' profits only is disingenuous at best. The profits are only what's left after executive pay and a ton of other business expenses that do not count as profit. If you look at the senate hearings, you'll see that there is a ton of wasteful "business expenses" going on there that don't show up in just the pure profit.

 

[Fern]

It's not really true. Counting insurance companies' profits only is disingenuous at best. The profits are only what's left after executive pay and a ton of other business expenses that do not count as profit. If you look at the senate hearings, you'll see that there is a ton of wasteful "business expenses" going on there that don't show up in just the pure profit.

I've already posted the 'ungodly' amount of exec pay, in this thread IIRC. It's a pretty small amount in total.

So the senate says there is a "ton" of wasteful spending going on? Firstly I doubt that it is a "ton", if it was you'd be killing it's profits and stock price. Secondly, when it comes to wasteful spending, our government is second to nobody.

Besides, (1) this legislation does nothing to address that (supposed) problem, and (2) no one has calculated the savings from single payer to prove that private HC insurance companies are the cause of our problem.

But lets suppose whatever bill emerges has a single payer provision; what are we gonna do about:

(1) all the people in that industry now put out of work? And

(2) the loss in 401(k) plans and stock investments of those people in this country that own shares in HC insurance companies?

Fern

 

[wetech]

"Some groups" = conservative think tanks...

CBO projected 1 trillion.

"Obamacare" doesn't exist, since he is not constructing the bill.

Next?

1 trillion with 10 years of revenue paying for 6 years of services.