Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 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)?

No I haven't a clue. Was it in the hundred of thousands? Man if you were able to recover from that and keep a good credit rating and do well fiscally afterwards you did fantastic. Just imagine how much better you'd be if you had Health Ins.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: 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.

Rather than insulting me, use your brain for what it was designed for and think things through.

You are being short-sited. Short-term costs increase. Long term costs decrease due to less need to pay for catastrophic illness, which account for the vast majority of patient care costs. You are already paying for these individuals because hospitals cannot turn them away. If these diseases are caught early they are MUCH easier to treat and cost a fraction of the price. The "cost" of universal care would pay for itself in reduced need for treating catastrophic illness. These savings are not insignificant, they would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars each year. It also leads to increased economic productivity because people live longer, healthier lives, allowing them to remain in the work force longer. They pay more taxes, produce and consume more services, ect. The type of savings are not easily measured, but they are real, and they are not insignificant.

Having everyone have access to healthcare allows us to tackle some more significant problems health problems facing the country, such as obesity. It's a complex issue. Many of the poorest people in the country are also the most obese, mainly because the cheapest food available to them is Micky Ds. Go look at the estimates for how much obesity and smoking cost the country each year. If we can regain some of that lost money than universal health care pays for itself.

I object to the idea that there is a fixed supply. That implies that once a doctor is gone no one replaces him. We can train more doctors and build more hospitals. There is no shortage of people who want to go to medical school. You don't even NEED a doctor to handle most illnesses, a Physician's Assistant or Nurse Practitioner will do. Thinks such as mental illness should be handled by Psychologists, not General Practitioners. There are *many* new jobs that can be created in health care that do not require a medical degree. It doesn't take 8 years of training to treat a cold.

Also, I don't believe it should be "free." I simply want the plan Obama described during the campaign, a government-run program that anyone can buy into. This would force private companies to offer, as a bare minimum, comparable services to what the government offers. This should help to restore competition. One of the largest problems is that 90% of HMOs are owned by 4 countries. Administration costs have skyrocketed because competition is gone.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: 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...

So what is the meaning of Skoorb's point then?

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Rather than insulting me, use your brain for what it was designed for and think things through.

You are being short-sited. Short-term costs increase. Long term costs decrease due to less need to pay for catastrophic illness, which account for the vast majority of patient care costs. You are already paying for these individuals because hospitals cannot turn them away. If these diseases are caught early they are MUCH easier to treat and cost a fraction of the price. The "cost" of universal care would pay for itself in reduced need for treating catastrophic illness. These savings are not insignificant, they would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars each year. It also leads to increased economic productivity because people live longer, healthier lives, allowing them to remain in the work force longer. They pay more taxes, produce and consume more services, ect. The type of savings are not easily measured, but they are real, and they are not insignificant.

Having everyone have access to healthcare allows us to tackle some more significant problems health problems facing the country, such as obesity. It's a complex issue. Many of the poorest people in the country are also the most obese, mainly because the cheapest food available to them is Micky Ds. Go look at the estimates for how much obesity and smoking cost the country each year. If we can regain some of that lost money than universal health care pays for itself.

I object to the idea that there is a fixed supply. That implies that once a doctor is gone no one replaces him. We can train more doctors and build more hospitals. There is no shortage of people who want to go to medical school. You don't even NEED a doctor to handle most illnesses, a Physician's Assistant or Nurse Practitioner will do. Thinks such as mental illness should be handled by Psychologists, not General Practitioners. There are *many* new jobs that can be created in health care that do not require a medical degree. It doesn't take 8 years of training to treat a cold.

Also, I don't believe it should be "free." I simply want the plan Obama described during the campaign, a government-run program that anyone can buy into. This would force private companies to offer, as a bare minimum, comparable services to what the government offers. This should help to restore competition. One of the largest problems is that 90% of HMOs are owned by 4 countries. Administration costs have skyrocketed because competition is gone.

This.

 

[Carmen813]

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.

I've been through a similar situation. My wife had Leukemia at age 20. I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma at 21. I'm now 24 and just entering the work force. My treatment cost around $800,000. My wife's was well over $1.2 million. These types of illnesses are debilitating when they happen, and can cause complete financial ruin very quickly. After finishing treatment, they make you question why you fought so hard to survive in the first place. We are both as healthy as we're likely to get now, and I've worked hard to finish college and begin looking for a job. We aren't asking for freebies, we're asking for a chance to succeed.

 

[jpeyton]

Finally!

Universal health care, here we come :thumbsup:

Make no mistake, the GOP will fight until their last breath to keep UHC from coming to our country. It would be politically ruinous for them; they wouldn't win a national election for the next decade.

 

[Carmen813]

Here's an example of the costs I'm talking about:
http://weightloss.about.com/od...yhealth/a/bl_costs.htm

Reducing these types of costs is definitely an achievable objective. Honestly, it's only a matter of time before we fight the "War on Fat."

 

[Zebo]

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.

Your MATH stinks SKoorb.

Try Taiwan who insures everyone for HALF the cost. Thats 2.25x the value if you believe we have over 60 million uninsured. Or France, or Germany, or your very own Canada Insures everyone for less than we insure not quite everyone.

Seems silly from a financial perspective let alone morally not to provide UHC for all.

Is hurting our companies too who pay out the ass relative to foreign competition.

I really don't understand the opposition unless you own an HMO or something.

 

[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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Here's an example of the costs I'm talking about:
http://weightloss.about.com/od...yhealth/a/bl_costs.htm

Reducing these types of costs is definitely an achievable objective. Honestly, it's only a matter of time before we fight the "War on Fat."

:thumbsdown:
War on FAT or smokers for that matter will costs us more in future in old peoples.

 

[Slew Foot]

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.

Technically, the illegals arent coming up from Guatemala to have their appendicitis taken care of. Will they come up to have their Whipples or back surgery at tax payer expense?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Here's an example of the costs I'm talking about:
http://weightloss.about.com/od...yhealth/a/bl_costs.htm

Reducing these types of costs is definitely an achievable objective. Honestly, it's only a matter of time before we fight the "War on Fat."

:thumbsdown:
War on FAT or smokers for that matter will costs us more in future in old peoples.

I can't tell if you are joking, but I think so.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Technically, the illegals arent coming up from Guatemala to have their appendicitis taken care of. Will they come up to have their Whipples or back surgery at tax payer expense?

Almost certainly not. I mean if the Guatemalans are willing to come up to the US for UHC, in this future we're looking into, why aren't they just going the extra mile up to Canada today?

It's not like if you implement UHC hospitals suddenly just start giving any operation someone wants to them for free whenever they want it.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

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.

Technically, the illegals arent coming up from Guatemala to have their appendicitis taken care of. Will they come up to have their Whipples or back surgery at tax payer expense?

We cannot turn Illegals away from hospital because that would be....illegal (love irony).

I hope Illegals would get coverage under the Obama plan, since as some has pointed out, the more people, the cheaper it'd be. Let anyone who wants free health care , come, and USA will be #1!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Here's an example of the costs I'm talking about:
http://weightloss.about.com/od...yhealth/a/bl_costs.htm

Reducing these types of costs is definitely an achievable objective. Honestly, it's only a matter of time before we fight the "War on Fat."

:thumbsdown:
War on FAT or smokers for that matter will costs us more in future in old peoples.

I can't tell if you are joking, but I think so.

Absolutely not joking. Peer reviewed studies say smokers and fatties are cheaper to society over the long run. We should be encouraging people to eat fatty foods and smoke
Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people: study

There was a study in Jama about this I'll see if I can find it. In the meantime put this in your pipe and smoke it:
University of Chicago- Journal of Law & Economics. Studies at the national level indicate that cigarettes are self-financing since external costs such as those due to illnesses are offset by cost savings associated with premature death, chiefly pension costs.

N Engl J Med - If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

 

[boomerang]

I'm just glad that Obama and his staff found the map to the fruit jars buried in the White House lawn. I'd be rather upset to find that we were going to have to borrow the money for everything thus far. :roll:

Funny how excessive borrowing got us into this mess and excessive borrowing is going to get us out. It's also interesting how old ideas that didn't work, are now new and fresh and sure to succeed in the eyes of a new generation.

I'm just glad I won't live long enough to have to pay for all of this.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: boomerang
I'm just glad that Obama and his staff found the map to the fruit jars buried in the White House lawn. I'd be rather upset to find that we were going to have to borrow the money for everything thus far. :roll:

Funny how excessive borrowing got us into this mess and excessive borrowing is going to get us out. It's also interesting how old ideas that didn't work, are now new and fresh and sure to succeed in the eyes of a new generation.

I'm just glad I won't live long enough to have to pay for all of this.

Yeah fuck the grand kids, ungrateful little bastards:thumbsup:

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: boomerang
I'm just glad that Obama and his staff found the map to the fruit jars buried in the White House lawn. I'd be rather upset to find that we were going to have to borrow the money for everything thus far. :roll:

Funny how excessive borrowing got us into this mess and excessive borrowing is going to get us out. It's also interesting how old ideas that didn't work, are now new and fresh and sure to succeed in the eyes of a new generation.

I'm just glad I won't live long enough to have to pay for all of this.

Yeah fuck the grand kids, ungrateful little bastards:thumbsup:

True dat.

 

[Vic]

Uh... how much did the govt spend on health care during the Bush admin?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Here's an example of the costs I'm talking about:
http://weightloss.about.com/od...yhealth/a/bl_costs.htm

Reducing these types of costs is definitely an achievable objective. Honestly, it's only a matter of time before we fight the "War on Fat."

:thumbsdown:
War on FAT or smokers for that matter will costs us more in future in old peoples.

I can't tell if you are joking, but I think so.

Absolutely not joking. Peer reviewed studies say smokers and fatties are cheaper to society over the long run. We should be encouraging people to eat fatty foods and smoke
Smokers, the obese cheaper to treat than healthy, long-living people: study

There was a study in Jama about this I'll see if I can find it. In the meantime put this in your pipe and smoke it:
University of Chicago- Journal of Law & Economics. Studies at the national level indicate that cigarettes are self-financing since external costs such as those due to illnesses are offset by cost savings associated with premature death, chiefly pension costs.

N Engl J Med - If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

Those studies do not include the economic repercussions of having a longer lasting work force.

 

[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.

 

[winnar111]

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 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?

Medicare alone is triple the cost of the Iraq War.

 

[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.