• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama offers up cuts to SS and Medicare

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eskimospy said:
And yet the OECD analysis of health outcomes for those nations in many cases shows similar effectiveness to ours for a fraction of the cost. Also, obese and diabetic people actually cost the health care system less than healthy people because they die sooner.

From what you've been writing here it seems like you don't understand how medical systems work very well.
Click to expand...


They don't die sooner because of LTC. Insulin, heart drugs, constant visits to the doctor for management, all increase costs.

And your using OECD analysis? The organization which used to be about free markets and now has shifted toward pushing progressive policy? Nah, they wouldn't have any statistical skew now would they?
 
mwilliams8705 said:
They don't die sooner because of LTC. Insulin, heart drugs, constant visits to the doctor for management, all increase costs.

And your using OECD analysis? The organization which used to be about free markets and now has shifted toward pushing progressive policy? Nah, they wouldn't have any statistical skew now would they?
Click to expand...

Oh did you have a better source of info other than your own personal experience?
 
eskimospy said:
Sure, but as already covered our UHC system for the elderly (Medicare) is more efficient than private insurance. So even within our own system it's clear that UHC saves money.
Click to expand...

It isn't that more efficient and as a program costs the government. If we didn't do medicare in the first place, than efficiency really doesn't matter.

UHC also has the pitfalls that I said earlier.
 
mwilliams8705 said:
They don't die sooner because of LTC. Insulin, heart drugs, constant visits to the doctor for management, all increase costs.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect in all ways. Diabetics and such most certainly do die sooner.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22531113

For more information on the impact of obesity on health care costs:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

And your using OECD analysis? The organization which used to be about free markets and now has shifted toward pushing progressive policy? Nah, they wouldn't have any statistical skew now would they?
Click to expand...

Oh that old dodge. When confronted with evidence that says you're wrong, the evidence must be part of some conspiracy. lol.
 
mwilliams8705 said:
It isn't that more efficient and as a program costs the government. If we didn't do medicare in the first place, than efficiency really doesn't matter.

UHC also has the pitfalls that I said earlier.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. You think Medicare should be gone, you think private insurers should be gone (feel free to correct me) and you want to go back to a time when doctors made house calls and you think all if that will reduce costs and have less pitfalls than the current system and you base all of this on anecdotal evidence?

Lol

Good day!
 
ivwshane said:
So let me get this straight. You think Medicare should be gone, you think private insurers should be gone (feel free to correct me) and you want to go back to a time when doctors made house calls and you think all if that will reduce costs and have less pitfalls than the current system and you base all of this on anecdotal evidence?

Lol

Good day!
Click to expand...


No. I say that private insurance and at cost services would be better for the nation.

Good day to you too😉
 
eskimospy said:
This is incorrect in all ways. Diabetics and such most certainly do die sooner.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22531113

For more information on the impact of obesity on health care costs:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029



Oh that old dodge. When confronted with evidence that says you're wrong, the evidence must be part of some conspiracy. lol.
Click to expand...

Well, they do die sooner, that's good for universal health care. I was just saying while their alive their costs are much higher than other people. So the problem is increasing use of long term care. Do you think we should provide it and why?
 
mwilliams8705 said:
Well, they do die sooner, that's good for universal health care. I was just saying while their alive their costs are much higher than other people. So the problem is increasing use of long term care. Do you think we should provide it and why?
Click to expand...

Yes, while alive their costs are higher but that's irrelevant. You cited diabetics as a cost driver for the US system and that is false.

Of course we should provide long term care. The purpose of human society in my opinion is to provide the best possible life to the greatest number of people possible.
 
Social Security is the one thing they should not be cutting. People payed into it during their working life, I expect them to be payed out fairly. That the government has basically squandered those payments and is now operating a giant Ponzi scheme is not an excuse. Cut cost somewhere else.
 
From hearing other reports it sounds like 40 billion reduction in medicare spending + govt programs tied to chained CPI in exchange for ~50-60 billion in tax increases a year?

Republicans should work with him on this.
 
Genx87 said:
From hearing other reports it sounds like 40 billion reduction in medicare spending + govt programs tied to chained CPI in exchange for ~50-60 billion in tax increases a year?

Republicans should work with him on this.
Click to expand...

Why not just do it anyways and say no tax increases?
 
eskimospy said:
Yes, while alive their costs are higher but that's irrelevant. You cited diabetics as a cost driver for the US system and that is false.

Of course we should provide long term care. The purpose of human society in my opinion is to provide the best possible life to the greatest number of people possible.
Click to expand...

Every cost is now a cost to the US government and everyone in turn.

The purpose of American human society is to provide an environment for people to prosper, not a "best possible life, for the greatest number of people." I believe those are words straight out of Marx right?
 
Munky said:
Social Security is the one thing they should not be cutting. People payed into it during their working life, I expect them to be payed out fairly. That the government has basically squandered those payments and is now operating a giant Ponzi scheme is not an excuse. Cut cost somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Or cut social security, call the entire thing a tax over the years for general use(which it was).
 
mwilliams8705 said:
Every cost is now a cost to the US government and everyone in turn.

The purpose of American human society is to provide an environment for people to prosper, not a "best possible life, for the greatest number of people." I believe those are words straight out of Marx right?
Click to expand...

No, those words have nothing to do with Marx.
 
mwilliams8705 said:
History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy.

Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)
Click to expand...

So then you were lying when you said you don't agree with a "fuck them I got mine" attitude?
 
mwilliams8705 said:
History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy.

Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)
Click to expand...

First, I didn't say anything about individuals working for the common good.

Secondly, my statement was entirely devoid of any economics philosophy as all I said was that society exists to benefit the greatest number of its members to the greatest extent possible. Because you're so far to the ultra right, you read into things like that and see OMGCOMMUNISM when it's really an utterly uncontroversial statement. Capitalistic economies accomplish that goal far more effectively than communism.
 
eskimospy said:
First, I didn't say anything about individuals working for the common good.

Secondly, my statement was entirely devoid of any economics philosophy as all I said was that society exists to benefit the greatest number of its members to the greatest extent possible. Because you're so far to the ultra right, you read into things like that and see OMGCOMMUNISM when it's really an utterly uncontroversial statement. Capitalistic economies accomplish that goal far more effectively than communism.
Click to expand...

Ah, got it. Have capitalistic economies do the work and through socialist parasitism redistribute under fairness and best for society. Genius.

How can you say capitalism is best system then turn around and say that it is the worst for healthcare?
 
mwilliams8705 said:
Ah, got it. Have capitalistic economies do the work and through socialist parasitism redistribute under fairness and best for society. Genius.

How can you say capitalism is best system then turn around and say that it is the worst for healthcare?
Click to expand...

Nope, the idea that an economy could be pure capitalism isn't grounded in reality; all economies are mixed ones. Capitalistic economies with a strong socialized safety net is by far the preferred system, as evidenced in how it has triumphed over all the other ones in the marketplace of ideas. That's why I compared capitalistic economies to communism, not to socialism. Not to mention that everyone is to some extent a socialist, even you.

While capitalism is broadly the best means by which to run a system, there are numerous cases where that's not the case. Utilities are a good example. We don't want or need private companies running competing sewer lines, roads, etc. Furthermore there are some marketplaces where capitalism simply fails, and health care is one of them.

Medical costs are both extremely high and extremely unpredictable, therefore insurance of some sort is absolutely necessary. Nobody is paying for their brain surgery out of pocket. There are also large disparities in bargaining power information, etc that prevent a free market system from functioning. Sure you can shop around for a doctor's office visit, but if you're bleeding profusely from a gunshot wound you don't have that luxury.

Are you really so naive as to think that because capitalistic competition works for many things that it would have to work for everything? Absolute silliness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top