Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

[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...

 

[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.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
HEALTHCARE!?!

PORKULOUS!!!!

/s

I suppose that was a generous characterization. A planetarium buried somewhere in Chicago might be useful at least if I ever visit.

Health care for unproductives....well...

Spoken like a true goosestepping Nazi.

The fact that you sociopaths are opposed to the idea of reforming our system, so that people can at least afford medical care, even if its private market, speaks volumes.

 

[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 63.4 * 2 per year to provide coverage for every American??? 126.8 billion? What is our defense budget? What was the last Iraq war supplemental?

 

[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.

 

[Carmen813]

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.

With friends like these, who needs anenomies.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
The fact that you sociopaths are opposed to the idea of reforming our system, so that people can at least afford medical care, even if its private market, speaks volumes.

Uh... you are dead wrong. Many/most support reforming the system but just not socializing it more than it is now.

 

[Red Dawn]

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...

And all it will take is a catastrophic illness in your family to rock your world.

 

[Carmen813]

What people don't realize is that healthcare costs will go down with more people enrolled. More people enrolled = more people receiving regular care = less instances of catastrophic illness = less cost.

Access to healthcare has very little to do with "bettering yourself." I'm from an upper-middle class family. I was diagnosed with cancer during my junior year. I got sick, got treatment, got better, and went back and finished my degree. I'd say I did all I could to pull myself up, yet I still can't find a job and thus private coverage.

Fact is if you are sick and can't work, you don't have insurance. You can get medicaid, which is what I have now, but there are no private options available to you. Even if I could afford the hundreds per month private plans cost, I couldn't buy into one because of the magical "pre-existing condition term." You better hope your baby has no genetic defects or you will soon find out what that phrase means.

If you get sick before you have the opportunity to enter the work force and establish yourself (like me and my wife) you are double-screwed. Many employer backed plans will be hesitant to cover you for months. Some of us who do not have pain medication for a day cease to function, yet when we have access to it can hold down a job and live a normal life.

Frankly, given the choice between a bureaucrat making my health care decisions and an insurance agent, I'll take the bureaucrat. I know he isn't out to make a profit. Call me foolish, but medicaid is the best health care I've ever had. It sucks to know that once I do find a job, my quality of care will decline.

You need more proof that we need universal access to coverage? Young adult cancer patients (age 20-40) have a mortality rate comparable to the one they had in the 1970s. That is to say, survivor rates have not improved significantly in this age group in 40 years, despite all the medical advances. Meanwhile, senior citizens and children have a much higher survival rate. This age group (20-40) is also the most uninsured in the country. Do you think that is all coincidence?

 

[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.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
What people don't realize is that healthcare costs will go down with more people enrolled. More people enrolled = more people receiving regular care = less instances of catastrophic illness = less cost.

But you've forgotten, that Republicans hate the poor and want them to suffer in medical misery. They also hate people of color. So the fewer Americans with health care, the better. It's a moral issue.

 

[Ozoned]

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.

And you can add about .50 cents of administrative cost per dollar delivered for the governments preferred method of managing the program.

 

[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...

 

[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"

 

[irwincur]

True what you say. It was amazing that tort reform was never mentioned as campaign isuse last fall. Obama never gets to real causes of higher costs but runs right to the socialist option - that also includes money for illegals. This country is unsane.

Of course not. Do you know which lobby is the is one of the top money generators for the DNC?

Ding, ding, ding - trail lawyers.

Tort reform will NEVER fit into the Democrat's view of the costs of health care. For one, it is too logical and obvious of a problem. Additionally, there is no way in hell they will give up all that campaign cash to fix the real problem. Not when they can get stupid people to vote them the ability to spend our cash on it. So, we will still have expensive healthcare, and the lawyers will still be killing the system. Typical government program, let's not make the system more efficient, let's just burden everyone with the cost and hope that no one notices how outlandish it is.

Too bad that many American's do not realize that the money the government spends is not the governments, it is theirs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

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...

And all it will take is a catastrophic illness in your family to rock your world.

And you presume to know there wasn't? Do you have any clue how much a pre-mature baby costs and to have your wife on bedrest for the month before birth (thus not working)?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
What people don't realize is that healthcare costs will go down with more people enrolled. More people enrolled = more people receiving regular care = less instances of catastrophic illness = less cost.

Are you retarded? More people enrolled = more services demanded, +fixed supply = price skyrockets.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

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.

Who said it was your job? Obviously something so important can't be left to an idiot like you? 😛

How about as an employer? I've read that something like 70% of uninsured people work but can't afford insurance. I'm guessing you favor the old "use them up and shit them out" method?

And you people wonder why Bush's so called "compassionate conservatism" fell flat on it's face. Too bad it had to take the economy down with it.

Im wondering what Bush had to do with private label mortgage backed securities? Oh well, different subject.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Still the simple math seems to elude. I'd love somebody to explain how a finite resource opened up to more customers is going to give them all the same quality of care. Please, enlightened ones, explain how the same number of doctors offering care to more people will not dilute the quality of what's already in place.

I wonder why no one has addressed this point yet. It certainly is valid.

 

[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.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Still the simple math seems to elude. I'd love somebody to explain how a finite resource opened up to more customers is going to give them all the same quality of care. Please, enlightened ones, explain how the same number of doctors offering care to more people will not dilute the quality of what's already in place.

I wonder why no one has addressed this point yet. It certainly is valid.

So 75% of people in this thread are actually arguing that a certain chunk of Americans should not be able to receive medical care, because it will drive costs in the private market up, or will require the AMA to admit more med students thereby lowering standards.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: irwincur

True what you say. It was amazing that tort reform was never mentioned as campaign isuse last fall. Obama never gets to real causes of higher costs but runs right to the socialist option - that also includes money for illegals. This country is unsane.

Of course not. Do you know which lobby is the is one of the top money generators for the DNC?

Ding, ding, ding - trail lawyers.

Tort reform will NEVER fit into the Democrat's view of the costs of health care. For one, it is too logical and obvious of a problem. Additionally, there is no way in hell they will give up all that campaign cash to fix the real problem. Not when they can get stupid people to vote them the ability to spend our cash on it. So, we will still have expensive healthcare, and the lawyers will still be killing the system. Typical government program, let's not make the system more efficient, let's just burden everyone with the cost and hope that no one notices how outlandish it is.

Too bad that many American's do not realize that the money the government spends is not the governments, it is theirs.

You should probably take a minute to check the percentage of current costs on our healthcare system that lawsuits/malpractice insurance takes up.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

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.

Who said it was your job? Obviously something so important can't be left to an idiot like you? 😛

How about as an employer? I've read that something like 70% of uninsured people work but can't afford insurance. I'm guessing you favor the old "use them up and shit them out" method?

And you people wonder why Bush's so called "compassionate conservatism" fell flat on it's face. Too bad it had to take the economy down with it.

Im wondering what Bush had to do with private label mortgage backed securities? Oh well, different subject.

I'm wondering who the idiots are who elected him..... twice no less!!!

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: irwincur

True what you say. It was amazing that tort reform was never mentioned as campaign isuse last fall. Obama never gets to real causes of higher costs but runs right to the socialist option - that also includes money for illegals. This country is unsane.

Of course not. Do you know which lobby is the is one of the top money generators for the DNC?

Ding, ding, ding - trail lawyers.

Tort reform will NEVER fit into the Democrat's view of the costs of health care. For one, it is too logical and obvious of a problem. Additionally, there is no way in hell they will give up all that campaign cash to fix the real problem. Not when they can get stupid people to vote them the ability to spend our cash on it. So, we will still have expensive healthcare, and the lawyers will still be killing the system. Typical government program, let's not make the system more efficient, let's just burden everyone with the cost and hope that no one notices how outlandish it is.

Too bad that many American's do not realize that the money the government spends is not the governments, it is theirs.

You should probably take a minute to check the percentage of current costs on our healthcare system that lawsuits/malpractice insurance takes up.

But but but lawyers are a familiar Repub scapegoat. But the HMOs need their profits and ridiculously inefficient administration to make America great!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Still the simple math seems to elude. I'd love somebody to explain how a finite resource opened up to more customers is going to give them all the same quality of care. Please, enlightened ones, explain how the same number of doctors offering care to more people will not dilute the quality of what's already in place.

I wonder why no one has addressed this point yet. It certainly is valid.

So 75% of people in this thread are actually arguing that a certain chunk of Americans should not be able to receive medical care, because it will drive costs in the private market up, or will require the AMA to admit more med students thereby lowering standards.

uh, no. Thats not even close to the point being made...