Obama offers up cuts to SS and Medicare

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
The argument is your screwed either way. Cut anything and it will cost more?

No it isn't. I was just pointing out how your position was logically incoherent. You complain about fraud and abuse and then advocate for policies that would likely increase them. It was nonsensical.

Or we could cut in general and say goodbye to socialized medicine.

It would save trillions because that is what it is going to cost us in the years to come.

It only saves us trillions if we are simply not giving health care to people anymore. If we want private insurance to pick up the slack it will actually cost us more, as private insurance is less efficient.

If your argument is simply not to give health care to the elderly anymore, there's not much to say other than "no.". That's not what we want to do as a society, so that's that.
 

mwilliams8705

Member
Apr 4, 2013
85
0
0
That's some brilliant thinking right there!

Guess what costs have gone up higher than the rate of inflation? Guess what the number one cause of bankruptcy was before the housing crash?
Can you think of any reasons why having a healthy population might be a benefit to the country as well as to the people themselves?
Can you name some industrialized nations that don't have a universal healthcare system and who have a healthier population than us?

Your solution is simple for a reason, its stupid and hasn't worked.

Let me guess. Health care costs?

To think, if it wasn't a socialized risk and it was private, there wouldn't be a drain on the rest of us in terms of cost. Maybe more people would be conscious of their own health. Also culture has a lot more of impact on healthiness of a population than healthcare systems in general? The biggest problem in the USA? Obesity. Why? Sedentary lifestyle coupled with abundance of sugar, fat, etc ladened foods.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
And it is still the largest program, with just fraud and improper claims accounting for $48 billion in waste a year and just because it has the lowest doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot.

we send more than that to russia, china, Israel, egypt and god knows who else in one single month.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
That's some brilliant thinking right there!

Guess what costs have gone up higher than the rate of inflation? Guess what the number one cause of bankruptcy was before the housing crash?
Can you think of any reasons why having a healthy population might be a benefit to the country as well as to the people themselves?
Can you name some industrialized nations that don't have a universal healthcare system and who have a healthier population than us?

Your solution is simple for a reason, its stupid and hasn't worked.

Lets not go overboard now. An overall healthier population really has nothing to do with how we do healthcare here in the US. We could have UHC for Everyone and the US overall would still continue on its completely unhealthy and lazy lifestyle. It's not like people don't already know that doing nothing and eating/drinking like sh1t is bad for them. They know. They just don't care.

Chuck
 

mwilliams8705

Member
Apr 4, 2013
85
0
0
No it isn't. I was just pointing out how your position was logically incoherent. You complain about fraud and abuse and then advocate for policies that would likely increase them. It was nonsensical..

No. Your position is to not cut anything because more costs would be incurred so there lies the problem. You can't cut a program or somehow it will cause problems. So you have growing costs and can't do nothing about it.



It only saves us trillions if we are simply not giving health care to people anymore. If we want private insurance to pick up the slack it will actually cost us more, as private insurance is less efficient.

If your argument is simply not to give health care to the elderly anymore, there's not much to say other than "no.". That's not what we want to do as a society, so that's that.

Exactly. We shoudn't have socialized medicine at all. As a society, families should take care of their own. Ask yourself this, how was medicine handled before the 60's before medicare was implemented?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
Let me guess. Health care costs?

To think, if it wasn't a socialized risk and it was private, there wouldn't be a drain on the rest of us in terms of cost. Maybe more people would be conscious of their own health. Also culture has a lot more of impact on healthiness of a population than healthcare systems in general? The biggest problem in the USA? Obesity. Why? Sedentary lifestyle coupled with abundance of sugar, fat, etc ladened foods.

It is privatized you moron, when you retire is when it could be conceived as socialized.
 

mwilliams8705

Member
Apr 4, 2013
85
0
0
we send more than that to russia, china, Israel, egypt and god knows who else in one single month.


Besides the point, and your right, we shouldn't.

But funny about that China point, we send more to them because of interest payments because of our debt we incur from spending on things like healthcare.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
No. Your position is to not cut anything because more costs would be incurred so there lies the problem. You can't cut a program or somehow it will cause problems. So you have growing costs and can't do nothing about it.

Except I didn't argue that anywhere. Where did you get such a foolish idea in your head?

Exactly. We shoudn't have socialized medicine at all. As a society, families should take care of their own. Ask yourself this, how was medicine handled before the 60's before medicare was implemented?

Life expectancy was a full decade shorter in 1960 than it is today. You might want to return to such a state, but the rest of us don't. So if you're asking why we don't return to a much worse system, the reason is that it's a much worse system.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
No. Your position is to not cut anything because more costs would be incurred so there lies the problem. You can't cut a program or somehow it will cause problems. So you have growing costs and can't do nothing about it.





Exactly. We shoudn't have socialized medicine at all. As a society, families should take care of their own. Ask yourself this, how was medicine handled before the 60's before medicare was implemented?

Lol another straw man argument.

What was health care like before the 60's please enlighten us to this golden age of health care.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Lets not go overboard now. An overall healthier population really has nothing to do with how we do healthcare here in the US. We could have UHC for Everyone and the US overall would still continue on its completely unhealthy and lazy lifestyle. It's not like people don't already know that doing nothing and eating/drinking like sh1t is bad for them. They know. They just don't care.

Chuck

An overall healthier population definitely has something to do with how we do health care. While you are right that there are other factors as well, it's just not accurate to say our system has nothing to do with it.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
An overall healthier population definitely has something to do with how we do health care. While you are right that there are other factors as well, it's just not accurate to say our system has nothing to do with it.

Ok, in the US, it has very little to do with how healthy overall we are. Better?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
how about we totally cut head start. why should we use tax payers money for free daycare? but nooooo lets add 85 million to its already bloated budget.
 

mwilliams8705

Member
Apr 4, 2013
85
0
0
Except I didn't argue that anywhere. Where did you get such a foolish idea in your head?

Because you take the position of keeping government where it is today which is to assume that you don't want anything to change. The usual defense of this is "You can't cut or it will cause more problems than it saves."




Life expectancy was a full decade shorter in 1960 than it is today. You might want to return to such a state, but the rest of us don't. So if you're asking why we don't return to a much worse system, the reason is that it's a much worse system.

Pharmaceutical innovation had nothing to do with that? Vaccinations? Surgical techniques? Medical devices? How about the shift of the population from highly manual labor intensive jobs to other less intensive jobs due to technology? None of those factors had a part to play in increase in life expectancy?

The reason why we should return to such a system where socialized risk and costs are gone is basically solvency of the government because of reduction of costs.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Because you take the position of keeping government where it is today which is to assume that you don't want anything to change. The usual defense of this is "You can't cut or it will cause more problems than it saves."

Nowhere did I make that argument either. You are displaying alarmingly poor reasoning and reading comprehension skills so far.

Pharmaceutical innovation had nothing to do with that? Vaccinations? Surgical techniques? Medical devices? How about the shift of the population from highly manual labor intensive jobs to other less intensive jobs due to technology? None of those factors had a part to play in increase in life expectancy?

The reason why we should return to such a system where socialized risk and costs are gone is basically solvency of the government because of reduction of costs.

More straw men. You're really bad at this.