Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

[Modelworks]

I wonder if they will hire Michael Moore as the PR guy for the whole thing. He seems so well informed on it.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720
So more hand outs to illegals from the democratic party I see. Trying to buy future votes by bankrupting the country to give 10s of millions of illegals health care. The second UHC passes anyone in south America with a serious illness come across the boarder to get expensive treatments on the tab of the American tax payers. I am still waiting for all you UHC advocates to show me all these countrys who have 10s of millions of illegals were UHC works. UHC will just just bankrupt this country by giving away billions of free care to illegals.

We already have universal health care for illegals, genius. Hospitals cannot turn away anyone who comes in for emergency care.

This is the argument that people are either too dumb, too ignorant, or too dishonest to address. WE ALREADY HAVE UHC. It's just the absolute worst form of UHC imaginable because we turn people away from getting cheap preventative care, and cannot turn them away from getting hugely expensive catastrophic care.

Not true. They can, and do, turn away people unless the reason for their visit is life threatening.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic
Uh... how much did the govt spend on health care during the Bush admin?

9.6% less Medicaid spending in 2008. Quite a bit less in 2001 if you want to compare apples to apples.

Spending by the federal and state governments is expected to grow from $1 trillion in 2008 to $1.2 trillion in 2009.

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0421692220070305

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...ain2528226_page2.shtml

"The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," Walker argues.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720
So more hand outs to illegals from the democratic party I see. Trying to buy future votes by bankrupting the country to give 10s of millions of illegals health care. The second UHC passes anyone in south America with a serious illness come across the boarder to get expensive treatments on the tab of the American tax payers. I am still waiting for all you UHC advocates to show me all these countrys who have 10s of millions of illegals were UHC works. UHC will just just bankrupt this country by giving away billions of free care to illegals.

We already have universal health care for illegals, genius. Hospitals cannot turn away anyone who comes in for emergency care.

This is the argument that people are either too dumb, too ignorant, or too dishonest to address. WE ALREADY HAVE UHC. It's just the absolute worst form of UHC imaginable because we turn people away from getting cheap preventative care, and cannot turn them away from getting hugely expensive catastrophic care.

Not true. They can, and do, turn away people unless the reason for their visit is life threatening.

What do you think emergency care is?

 

[chucky2]

I have no clue on pro's/con's of this (other than it's an obscene amount of $$$), however, one thing that I positively know is this:

There is absoFinglutely no way that having UHC is going to prevent people from eating bad, not going to the Dr. instead of just saying "F it, I don't feel like going", etc. This is America. Keep dreaming in a fantasy world if you think UHC is going to get Shaniqua or Bubba to put down the fried chicken and fish, or Willard to not go to McD's on his stock exchange lunch break and load up on a McGreaser, then hit Starbucks up and load up on a $9 super duper healthy latte.

Will it help those who have a real medical problem and need help? Sure. Will it lower drug costs? Probably.

Will it make people take better preventative care of themselves? Not on your life.

Lets keep it real here folks.....

Chuck

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

Obviously then we should not offer healthcare to every 65 year old, now, should we?

yeah they're way past their prime..worthless burden to society, I recommend euthanasia.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720
So more hand outs to illegals from the democratic party I see. Trying to buy future votes by bankrupting the country to give 10s of millions of illegals health care. The second UHC passes anyone in south America with a serious illness come across the boarder to get expensive treatments on the tab of the American tax payers. I am still waiting for all you UHC advocates to show me all these countrys who have 10s of millions of illegals were UHC works. UHC will just just bankrupt this country by giving away billions of free care to illegals.

We already have universal health care for illegals, genius. Hospitals cannot turn away anyone who comes in for emergency care.

This is the argument that people are either too dumb, too ignorant, or too dishonest to address. WE ALREADY HAVE UHC. It's just the absolute worst form of UHC imaginable because we turn people away from getting cheap preventative care, and cannot turn them away from getting hugely expensive catastrophic care.

Not true. They can, and do, turn away people unless the reason for their visit is life threatening.

What do you think emergency care is?

The hospital I work for is a Catholic hospital and part of our mission is indigent care so we do take everyone.

As a result all the other hospitals in the area send the non life threatening visits that they don't want to deal with our way. We see somewhere around 20,000 ER visits per month and the vast majority are for things like "My baby has a cough" or "I cut my finger on a broken bottle", etc, etc, etc.... Now also being a trauma center we do get serious cases, but for the most part people, including those who DO have insurance, are using "emergency care" as a Dr's visit because they don't want to have to wait to get an appointment.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

Obviously then we should not offer healthcare to every 65 year old, now, should we?

yeah they're way past their prime..worthless burden to society, I recommend euthanasia.

That's what they do in GB and Germany. Try getting elective surgery once you're over 50, unless youve got friends in high places, youre screwed.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._go_pr_wh/obama_budget



WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama's first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform ? a little more than half what it may ultimately cost to provide every American with medical coverage.

Every year. He forgot to say a little more than 1/2 what it may ultimately cost to provide every american with medical coverage each year. The Health industry is roughly 7% of gdp. Under the banner of UHC. Coverage= Cost.

So it would cost 634 * 2 per year to provide coverage for every American??? 1.268 trillion? What is our defense budget? What was the last Iraq war supplemental?

I fixed your math.

No, it is not 634 per year. It is 634 Billion over the span of 10 years.

And....

"May 22, 2008

Iraq and Afghanistan war funding

The Senate voted 70-26 to reinsert $165 billion in spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars"

What The op states is what you are using 634 over 10 years. What I am telling you is that the cost of insuring or providing health care for all americans will cost (at the current level of consumption) at least 1.25 trillion per year. I would guess that consumption will increase dramatically. The 634 billion over 10 years wouldn't even cover the administrative costs of uhc.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._go_pr_wh/obama_budget



WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama's first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform ? a little more than half what it may ultimately cost to provide every American with medical coverage.

Every year. He forgot to say a little more than 1/2 what it may ultimately cost to provide every american with medical coverage each year. The Health industry is roughly 7% of gdp. Under the banner of UHC. Coverage= Cost.

So it would cost 634 * 2 per year to provide coverage for every American??? 1.268 trillion? What is our defense budget? What was the last Iraq war supplemental?

I fixed your math.

No, it is not 634 per year. It is 634 Billion over the span of 10 years.

And....

"May 22, 2008

Iraq and Afghanistan war funding

The Senate voted 70-26 to reinsert $165 billion in spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars"

What The op states is what you are using 634 over 10 years. What I am telling you is that the cost of insuring or providing health care for all americans will cost (at the current level of consumption) at least 1.25 trillion per year. I would guess that consumption will increase dramatically. The 634 billion over 10 years wouldn't even cover the administrative costs of uhc.

In a similar vein as GWB medicare drug plan, the first estimates were vastly lower than the actual costs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So what was BHO's comment last night.... something about taking responsibility.... oh wait... that right...it's not about personal responsibility - it's about taking responsibility for everyone...

Spoken like someone who has never had to decide between health care or food.

lol, if only you knew... I've posted here many times about how I was making crap $ with a new baby and such. Instead of wallowing in it - I made a move to where there was opportunity to better myself. So yeah, please continue with your BS when you have no clue what I've been through or where I came from...

Sorry, but having a new baby may be an expense but I don't see that as forcing you to decide between food and life saving pills/procedures as many have to do.

:roll: Again, you pretend to know yet show nothing but ignorance. Again, I was making shit $ and had a kid to pay for - basically I was one who had to "decide between health care or food". I did not have Insurance through my job. So what did I do? I changed my situation by taking the risk of moving to where there was more opportunity. But continue on with your ignorance and huff-puffery if you wish...

Oh please. You have NO IDEA what some people go through. You hit a bump in the road, but you managed. Did you even have to declare bankruptcy? I assume not or you would have said so.

It is you ignorance (and a little arrogance too) that is showing.

:roll: "a bump in the road" :laugh: Again, keep parading around your ignorance... and also you arrogance when you presume to know what and where I came from.

F'n liberals always seem to think they know what's better for people even though they have no clue about that person's reality.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So what was BHO's comment last night.... something about taking responsibility.... oh wait... that right...it's not about personal responsibility - it's about taking responsibility for everyone...

Spoken like someone who has never had to decide between health care or food.

It is not my job as a taxpayer to make sure everyone eats and has healthcare.

It wasnt in 1600. This is 2009.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
What The op states is what you are using 634 over 10 years. What I am telling you is that the cost of insuring or providing health care for all americans will cost (at the current level of consumption) at least 1.25 trillion per year. I would guess that consumption will increase dramatically. The 634 billion over 10 years wouldn't even cover the administrative costs of uhc.

Where are you getting this $1.25 trillion figure?

What are Americans currently (privatly and publicly) spending on health insurance?

Edit:
The thing that bothers me about asking the "afluent" to give back their tax cuts from the Bush years is that those making between $100k and $500k are most likely AMT tax payers anyway, so they really saw none of this "tax cut", and thus are being asked to pay back what they did not really receive in the first place. The people that got the big tax breaks are those that make much of their money through passive income.

Personally, if you're going to go for something like this system, you should ask EVERYONE to give a little more, even if the people at just above the poverty line are giving $1.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's going to be interesting when politicians tell doctors how to practice medicine. That will really screw things. Sure insurance companies make some things hard but they can't legally compell them to do so. That's going to such

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._go_pr_wh/obama_budget



WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama's first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform ? a little more than half what it may ultimately cost to provide every American with medical coverage.

Every year. He forgot to say a little more than 1/2 what it may ultimately cost to provide every american with medical coverage each year. The Health industry is roughly 7% of gdp. Under the banner of UHC. Coverage= Cost.

So it would cost 634 * 2 per year to provide coverage for every American??? 1.268 trillion? What is our defense budget? What was the last Iraq war supplemental?

I fixed your math.

No, it is not 634 per year. It is 634 Billion over the span of 10 years.

And....

"May 22, 2008

Iraq and Afghanistan war funding

The Senate voted 70-26 to reinsert $165 billion in spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars"

What The op states is what you are using 634 over 10 years. What I am telling you is that the cost of insuring or providing health care for all americans will cost (at the current level of consumption) at least 1.25 trillion per year. I would guess......... that consumption will increase dramatically. The 634 billion over 10 years wouldn't even cover the administrative costs of uhc.

quit guessing and bring us some facts that verifiable!!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's demographics. Health care must become more expensive with an aging population.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I have no clue on pro's/con's of this (other than it's an obscene amount of $$$), however, one thing that I positively know is this:

There is absoFinglutely no way that having UHC is going to prevent people from eating bad, not going to the Dr. instead of just saying "F it, I don't feel like going", etc. This is America. Keep dreaming in a fantasy world if you think UHC is going to get Shaniqua or Bubba to put down the fried chicken and fish, or Willard to not go to McD's on his stock exchange lunch break and load up on a McGreaser, then hit Starbucks up and load up on a $9 super duper healthy latte.

Will it help those who have a real medical problem and need help? Sure. Will it lower drug costs? Probably.

Will it make people take better preventative care of themselves? Not on your life.

Lets keep it real here folks.....

Chuck

THIS...
From somebody who works in the business (primary care MD who makes <$150K per year!, sees 30-35 patients a day, not the type that reads xrays and get's paid $400K), only about 10% of patients who are smokers/obese actually permanently put the cigarettes down/stop eating the big macs. BTW I work with patients who mostly make <$30K per year.

 

[winnar111]

Hmm, so apparently the reversal of the Bush tax cuts for the 'wealthy' are supposed to pay for health care, pay for green crap, pay for infrastructure, and close the deficit all at the same time.

Damn.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's going to be interesting when politicians tell doctors how to practice medicine. That will really screw things. Sure insurance companies make some things hard but they can't legally compell them to do so. That's going to such

Oh but they can and they do (all the time, actually).

Many hospitals and clinics are owned by Insurance Companies.

They can make "policy" decisions regarding level of care, number of patient appointments (monthly quotas) and what treatments can be discussed with patients.

If the Docs don't follow their protocol they can be punished both financially and professionally.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So what was BHO's comment last night.... something about taking responsibility.... oh wait... that right...it's not about personal responsibility - it's about taking responsibility for everyone...

Spoken like someone who has never had to decide between health care or food.

It is not my job as a taxpayer to make sure everyone eats and has healthcare.

It wasnt in 1600. This is 2009.

Have you ever read the Constitution and other founding documents? It appears you haven't...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Hmm, so apparently the reversal of the Bush tax cuts for the 'wealthy' are supposed to pay for health care, pay for green crap, pay for infrastructure, and close the deficit all at the same time.

Damn.

Hmmm.... didn't some of us point this out during the lying trips around the country by BHO... I mean "campaign" around the country? Anyone with 2 licks of sense knew he was FOS and used that "evil" tax cut(that EVERYONE WHO PAYS INCOME TAXES GOT) to pay for whatever program he though would stir the crowd he was in front of. Stupid blind libs... you can try to inform them all you want but they just bleat on and follow the leader...

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Oh please. You have NO IDEA what some people go through. You hit a bump in the road, but you managed. Did you even have to declare bankruptcy? I assume not or you would have said so.

It is you ignorance (and a little arrogance too) that is showing.

It's CAD. He has no idea what a catastrophic illness really is. A premature baby and a wife that can't work? Sure, that's trouble for anyone. I don't want to hear catastrophic though. As I've said in other threads, when I was diagnosed with cancer last year at the ripe old age of 28, I racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills in the span of 12 days. Not only that, but the chemotherapy regimen I had to undergo was 9 hours a day, 8 days out of every 21. When you add in the week or so of vomiting, anemia, and pain caused by the drugs and the medication necessary to repair your compromised immune system, you're talking 2 weeks out of every 3 out of commission. How are you going to work your way around that one? THAT'S a catastrophic illness.

As for Skoorb's mention and others, if you look at the US' per capita allocation of doctors and nurses it is lower than countries with UHC, but not that much lower. (about 15% for doctors, and about 2% for nurses) This is certainly an issue to be addressed, but it's hardly insurmountable. In addition, preventative care, like say with cancer for one, can massively reduce the cost of an illness to the system as a whole.

Our system has proved unsustainable, it's on its way out. Everyone here pretty much knows that at least a partially socialized system is in our future, it just depends on how long it will take this one to collapse. It's been proven over and over again with examples from all sorts of other OECD countries to provide better care at less cost.

Carmen813 and eskimospy stories are the real reason for UHC. Most insured people have insurance through their place of work. If they have an illness that requires several months of recovery time, they cannot work, if they cannot work, they are likely to get fired, if they are fired, they lose their health insurance and they are screwed. I had a burst appendix with complications as a student, very minor stuff compared to what Carmen813 and eskimospy had to go through. Yet I still had to have two surgeries and spent nearly 3 weeks in hospital. When I left hospital they left plastic tubes sticking out of my stomach to drain excess bodily fluids, I had to spend another month recovering. I was lucky because my parents insurance covered me, had I been working full time already, who knows how my employer would have reacted to my forced two month leave. Or what if someone gets cancer with one employer, beats it, but wants to switch jobs afterwards? They are screwed again because by switching employers they have to switch insurance carriers and cancer would be a "pre-existing" condition, so if their cancer comes back they're screwed. Hell, they don't even have to switch jobs to lose their benefits, smaller employers often switch insurance carriers, same result, the new insurance carrier will refuse to cover the employee's pre-existing condition.

Sadly, very few posters in this thread talk about this problem. They talk about obesity and illegals and all the ways the government could possibly screw up the UHC, however they completely ignore that even a hard working man who has done nothing wrong, been taking care of his body, has been working to better his life and has been diligently paying health insurance can be screwed up so badly. You are one burst appendix away from unemployment and possibly financial ruin.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bamacre
The focus needs to be on reducing the costs of health care, not shifting the burden of the high costs.

One of the reason Health Care costs are so high is because we are living longer. My folks had a nice little nest egg for their retirement but they didn't plan on living as long as they have, at my father didn't. Even with Medicare and the Ins from his Union (thank god for the Carpenters Union) all the cost for the medical procedures he's had to endure over the last 5 years have really eaten into the nest egg. Imagine what it'll be for you younger people. You might think you are saving up enough for your retirement but without Healthcare reform all that will be eaten up with a catastrophic illness. Hopefully winnar won't have that problem.

Obviously then we should not offer healthcare to every 65 year old, now, should we?

Well in your case 12 year olds.

Look in the mirror pal, your hero has been whining about SCHIP for 4 years while W told him and Pelosi to get lost.

Chuck Norris has been whining about SCHIP?

 

[Socio]

I do not see how this is going to work; he is going to tax the hell out of the job creators in this country which will obviously cause layoffs not new jobs.

Not only that working couples whom make over $250,000, a year that pay for day care etc? will just have one spouse quit because it will likely be cheaper for them that way.

This combined with the increase in layoffs means the government will end up getting less in overall taxes not more..

This also begs the question; why should someone who took out loans to pay for college, got a degree, paid the loans off and worked their butts off to get themselves to the point where they are making $250,000+ a year be made to pay for some welfare receiving baby making machines health care?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Socio
I do not see how this is going to work; he is going to tax the hell out of the job creators in this country which will obviously cause layoffs not new jobs.

Not only that working couples whom make over $250,000, a year that pay for day care etc? will just have one spouse quit because it will likely be cheaper for them that way.

This combine with the increase in layoffs means the government will end up getting less in overall taxes not more..

This also begs the question; why should someone who took out loans to pay for college, got a degree, paid the loans off and worked their butts off to get themselves to the point where they are making $250,000+ a year be made to pay for some welfare receiving baby making machines health care?

Don't worry...be happy...the Dems have all the answers...and if you don't agree...you're an obstructionist...so pay your taxes (assuming you're not a cabinet member) and STFU. <---sarcasm