Healthcare costs in the US went up 6.7%

[imported_Shivetya]

Federal, state and local governments already pay almost 47% of the nation's healthcare costs through public programs. Under current policies, the total government share would creep up to more than half the bill by 2017. The Democratic presidential candidates' plans to expand healthcare coverage would accelerate the tipping point to 2011, according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis.


FORTY SEVEN PERCENT.

apparently we already have government healthcare, we just didn't know it.

The nation's healthcare bill climbed above $2 trillion in 2006, averaging a record $7,026 per person

An amazing number, but here is the most important number

For example, about 10% of the population accounts for more than 60% of healthcare costs.

So, 1.3 TRILLION dollars goes to pay for the healtcare of 10% of the population of the United States. How do you expect further government involvement to reduce costs?

The numbers that are available show that the various levels of government are already contributing nearly a TRILLION dollars a year to our medical care yet FORTYSEVEN MILLION people don't have insurance.

You have to ask, what in the hell is the government doing spending a TRILLION dollars and it still has all those people not covered? What are they spending it on? Thats the real problem with healtcare in the United States. That the various levels of government can spend a TRILLION dollars and still have FORTYSEVEN MILLION people not covered.

 

[techs]

This just in. Shivetya doesn't understand the concept of "insurance".
In fact, I bet the 2 percent of the people who have auto accidents in a year account for 97 percent of all auto insurance costs.

See, that's why the call it "insurance".

 

[Nebor]

Because providing health care isn't the government's job. Ensuring freedom, and liberty, and waging wars is the government's job.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Because providing health care isn't the government's job. Ensuring freedom, and liberty, and waging wars is the government's job.

That's an opinion, though you stated it as a fact. The beauty of our system of government is that the role of the government can change with time and with the popular opinion. If the majority of the citizens of the US (or the majority of those counting the votes) decides that we want such a healthcare system, then it becomes the job of the government to provide it for us.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Nebor
Because providing health care isn't the government's job. Ensuring freedom, and liberty, and waging wars is the government's job.

That's an opinion, though you stated it as a fact. The beauty of our system of government is that the role of the government can change with time and with the popular opinion. If the majority of the citizens of the US (or the majority of those counting the votes) decides that we want such a healthcare system, then it becomes the job of the government to provide it for us.

Yes; and maybe the government should furnish us with Cadillac's and large screen LCD TV's as well. I'm sure we could get a majority to go along with that. Oh, and the government should also hand out money on "Fist Full of Cash Fridays"...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
An amazing number, but here is the most important number

For example, about 10% of the population accounts for more than 60% of healthcare costs.

So, 1.3 TRILLION dollars goes to pay for the healtcare of 10% of the population of the United States. How do you expect further government involvement to reduce costs?

You are either incredibly naive or need to think about this before you post.

I have 'parented' my mom and pop to their deaths. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent on their care that prolonged their lives and added little to the quality of it.

Until America accepts death with dignity it will always be this way ...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Yes; and maybe the government should furnish us with Cadillac's and large screen LCD TV's as well. I'm sure we could get a majority to go along with that. Oh, and the government should also hand out money on "Fist Full of Cash Fridays"...

Ah, so you're of the opinion that you should have veto power over the will of the majority? Interesting. How did you come to be more important than the remainder of "We, the people?" If people did what you state in your post, it would indeed be the government's job to give it to them. It would likely lead to the crumbling of our economy due to excessive taxation, but if that's what the people want, the government's job is to give it to them.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Yes; and maybe the government should furnish us with Cadillac's and large screen LCD TV's as well. I'm sure we could get a majority to go along with that. Oh, and the government should also hand out money on "Fist Full of Cash Fridays"...

Ah, so you're of the opinion that you should have veto power over the will of the majority? Interesting. How did you come to be more important than the remainder of "We, the people?" If people did what you state in your post, it would indeed be the government's job to give it to them. It would likely lead to the crumbling of our economy due to excessive taxation, but if that's what the people want, the government's job is to give it to them.

We're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. And our constitution is pretty clear that the government should be of small scope and limited power. The government is not your mom (it doesn't feed you,) it's not your doctor (it doesn't look after your health,) and it's not your brother (it doesn't protect you.)

And I firmly believe that if the majority of the people think they can take money from me to pay for their health care, they can come and get it. I'm paying out 7.62x51mm first.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Nebor

And I firmly believe that if the majority of the people think they can take money from me to pay for their health care, they can come and get it. I'm paying out 7.62x51mm first.

I think that clearly qualifies as communicating a threat.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Nebor

And I firmly believe that if the majority of the people think they can take money from me to pay for their health care, they can come and get it. I'm paying out 7.62x51mm first.

I think that clearly qualifies as communicating a threat.

It's a conditional threat. "If you do this, I'll do this." It's not a threat under most state laws.

Of course, saying, "if you steal my money I'll kill you," is kosher in most everywhere in the world.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Nebor
We're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. And our constitution is pretty clear that the government should be of small scope and limited power. The government is not your mom (it doesn't feed you,) it's not your doctor (it doesn't look after your health,) and it's not your brother (it doesn't protect you.)

And I firmly believe that if the majority of the people think they can take money from me to pay for their health care, they can come and get it. I'm paying out 7.62x51mm first.

Your canned response might work if I had ever said that we are a democracy. Unfortunately for you, I didn't. The sum of documents authored in the 1700's regarding the role of government in our nation, including the Constitution, pretty clearly indicate that the government is by and for the people. Thus, the role of government is to do what the people want. The people are free to give it power or to take it away. Simply because you disagree with this basic fact doesn't give you the right to pretend to be Billy Badass and shoot someone because they have come to collect taxes. You are free to move elsewhere if the will of the people is so contrary to your own. If, on the other hand, the people do not want something (e.g. universal healthcare) and the government tries to shove it down our throats, then by all means defend your rights.

 

[senseamp]

We are already paying what other countries pay for universal healthcare, we are just not getting it because a certain party is more interested in shooting down healthcare reform than proposing any changes themselves.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Shivetya
An amazing number, but here is the most important number

For example, about 10% of the population accounts for more than 60% of healthcare costs.

So, 1.3 TRILLION dollars goes to pay for the healtcare of 10% of the population of the United States. How do you expect further government involvement to reduce costs?

You are either incredibly naive or need to think about this before you post.

I have 'parented' my mom and pop to their deaths. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent on their care that prolonged their lives and added little to the quality of it.

Until America accepts death with dignity it will always be this way ...

I think you may have a point. While efforts should be made to prolong the life of our elderly, it should be done within reason. Giving expensive chemo treatment or therapies to elderly people who already have a greatly diminished quality of life is reducing the quality and availability of care to younger people who still have a long life to live. This decision on whether a treatment should be given should be made by a doctor, and only a doctor, and should be based on the patients current health, and likelihood that the duraton of quality life gained by the treatment justifies the resources. Nobody likes having to make such decisions, but they are decisions that will have to be made, or the entire population will suffer the consequences.

Keep in mind that the resources required to provide healthcare to a person has gone up substantially over the years due to advances in medicine. We are reaching a point to where it might be common to have to choose when to let a person die, because medicine will be able to keep someone alive with almost no quality of life for decades. This poses great problems to a society, as we might find ourselves and our resources almost entirely consumed by the care of elderly people who would have otherwise died long ago.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Because providing health care isn't the government's job. Ensuring freedom, and liberty, and waging wars is the government's job.

LOL, Freedom, liberty, AND waging wars all in one sentence. You are indeed a Texan.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: senseamp
We are already paying what other countries pay for universal healthcare, we are just not getting it because a certain party is more interested in shooting down healthcare reform than proposing any changes themselves.

we're also subsidizing their universal medical care.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Nebor

And I firmly believe that if the majority of the people think they can take money from me to pay for their health care, they can come and get it. I'm paying out 7.62x51mm first.

I think that clearly qualifies as communicating a threat.

:roll: you are joking I hope?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Shivetya
An amazing number, but here is the most important number

For example, about 10% of the population accounts for more than 60% of healthcare costs.

So, 1.3 TRILLION dollars goes to pay for the healtcare of 10% of the population of the United States. How do you expect further government involvement to reduce costs?

You are either incredibly naive or need to think about this before you post.

I have 'parented' my mom and pop to their deaths. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent on their care that prolonged their lives and added little to the quality of it.

Until America accepts death with dignity it will always be this way ...

I think you may have a point. While efforts should be made to prolong the life of our elderly, it should be done within reason. Giving expensive chemo treatment or therapies to elderly people who already have a greatly diminished quality of life is reducing the quality and availability of care to younger people who still have a long life to live. This decision on whether a treatment should be given should be made by a doctor, and only a doctor, and should be based on the patients current health, and likelihood that the duraton of quality life gained by the treatment justifies the resources. Nobody likes having to make such decisions, but they are decisions that will have to be made, or the entire population will suffer the consequences.

Keep in mind that the resources required to provide healthcare to a person has gone up substantially over the years due to advances in medicine. We are reaching a point to where it might be common to have to choose when to let a person die, because medicine will be able to keep someone alive with almost no quality of life for decades. This poses great problems to a society, as we might find ourselves and our resources almost entirely consumed by the care of elderly people who would have otherwise died long ago.

Those two paragraphs are reason enough to keep Government out of health care (well, more than it already is). If an old person has the resources/means to have the expensive treatments done, then by all means he/she should...even if it won't prolong their life significantly. It is there choice.

But when the government starts to get involved, the ability to choose becomes far more limited.