One in four New Yorkers get free health care from Medicaid. Outrageous!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Note that I've said that I'm not against social support programs, but as they are instituted. I've no problem with you getting assistance at need, but this is the system which is slated for expansion, the one which I had the sad duty of telling a full blown AIDS patient that he couldn't access his medicaid benefits because the state screwed up and wouldn't let anyone bill them. That's the same system. People get a couple hundred bucks per child with no restrictions which were used for smokes, alcohol and HDTVs. I know you remember that one.

You know that people are living in the inner cities who are having generation after generation of children, with no motivation to change. That's the same system.

Tell me, what reforms have you seen instituted to change these things? I've seen none, yet people are paying 10k a year taxes on sub-200k homes and it's not enough. Could you justify the status quo to them? I could not.


As far as Marlin, he's not thinking and I'll prove it if he answers this question.


Supposing that in 2011 there was 25% increase of incidence of diabetes in the population.

Would the cost of health care go up that year or down, and why?

What does that have to do with anything? Did it go up because of more people with diabetes or is it more people saw a doctor and now could be treated properly?

And as already pointed out if they live shorter lives then in the total they would be cheaper then a healty person.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Republicans and conservative democrats wouldn't vote for healthcare reform unless the reforms and benefits were delayed. Successful reform is always bad for contrarians.

That is sadly true however it holds for all accepted political ideologies.

At the outset I suggested a means by which the Dems could have made it a cakewalk. If they had approached health care as health care, not as insurance reform they could have called for an assessment of the state of the US system, determine what works and what does not, and possible solutions with associated caveats. This should have been done by health care providers, experts in health care costs, and consumer advocates. It was not. Instead we had a top down dictation by people who were expert at writing laws but who effectively insulated themselves from competent opinions.

My sense is that the Dems did not want to risk someone coming up with a better idea not of their own doing. Also, I believe the natural hubris of partisans believed whatever they instituted would be more than adequate. They stayed at Holiday Inn. Of course the greatest reason is to be able to use their own plan to club the reps.

The problems many have isn't with a lack of legislation but an unwillingness to use due due diligence to make political hay.

By choosing to act as they have they've demonstrated unwillingness on the part of republicans to cooperate. "The Party of No" is a nice weapon but if they had really wanted genuine improvement in the system itself by using the means I suggested then the Reps would be fighting reasoned and informed policy expertly arrived at. Fighting Dems would have been the least of their problems and just by referring to the established facts the dems would have won the day.

You might reply that the reps would still try to oppose, but so what? Reps and dems don't determine many elections but rather independents. Right now we see politics as usual, not good leadership.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
What does that have to do with anything? Did it go up because of more people with diabetes or is it more people saw a doctor and now could be treated properly?

Would it matter?

Are health care costs based on per-person cost of treatment, or does it cost a set amount to treat everybody with a certain disease? That is his point. If next year, 10% more of the population needs to seek treatment for diabetes, health care expenditures are going to go up. People keep saying, "We spend so much on health care"... yeah... because people keep getting sick. Or do you think health services should cost the country a set amount, regardless of how many people seek what services?

And as already pointed out if they live shorter lives then in the total they would be cheaper then a healty person.

Nice to know you've given up on actually having a reasonable debate... they'll die sooner, so it costs less.

Then why.... WHY... are we trying to insure the millions of people without insurance? The sooner they die, the lower our health care costs will be. Nice to know that's the stance you've taken.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
What does that have to do with anything? Did it go up because of more people with diabetes or is it more people saw a doctor and now could be treated properly?

And as already pointed out if they live shorter lives then in the total they would be cheaper then a healty person.

Will the costs go up or down for that year?
Let me give you another similar example of cost savings. If you buy a 300k house for cash, as in the long run it costs less. That being the case mortgages should not exist, yet they do. Why? Because in anything other than the long run it is prohibitively expensive to do so for most people. Likewise increasing the utilization of any service requires payment when provided. There isn't an enormous tab that gets settled at the time of death. Sure, there is a total savings if someone dies early, but it does nothing to mitigate treatment now. This is a painfully simple concept in economics.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,630
82
91
Perhaps if you had done some fact-checking, you'd know that Walmart pays far more in taxes than is consumed by its employees' use of government programs. Walmart paid about $6 billion in taxes (by far the most of any corporation according to CNN) while their employees used about $1.58 billion in government services (according to a 2005 documentary).

The G$6 pays for more than just the subsidies their employees receive. If you exclude SS (which theoretically is covered by the payroll tax Walmart and their employees pay), Walmart's biggest tax liability is defense, not Medicaid or subsidized school lunches. I can't tell you exactly what proportion of that G$6 goes to programs their employees might utilize, but I can tell you it's less than G$6.

So, if taxes weren't taking $6 billion per year from Walmart, maybe they would just pay for their employees' health insurance. Instead, they're playing by the rules of the game - the rules that liberals made.

I highly doubt Walmart would pay for their employees' healthcare sans tax. There's really no reason for them to do so unless there's a sudden shortage of unskilled labor. I would think it'd be far cheaper to replace a sick employee than to pay for their healthcare. The anger at Walmart is just misplaced in my opinion. What people are really angry about is the fact that some people have so little value that the cost of providing them healthcare is more than they are worth.

FWIW, I'm opposed to high corporate tax rates. The nominal rate in this country should be brought down to the effective rate and reduced beyond that.

It's simply disingenuous to support these government programs then get outraged at the fact that companies are using them while footing the bill.

I agree with this. If Walmart is forced to pay taxes in proportion to Medicaid costs, then it's really just socialized medicine for Walmart employees paid for by Walmart profit. I would think that would be an acceptable arrangement for liberals. I personally feel that it would be more constructive to collect these types of taxes from personal income and not corporate taxes, but it is what it is.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Will the costs go up or down for that year?
Let me give you another similar example of cost savings. If you buy a 300k house for cash, as in the long run it costs less. That being the case mortgages should not exist, yet they do. Why? Because in anything other than the long run it is prohibitively expensive to do so for most people. Likewise increasing the utilization of any service requires payment when provided. There isn't an enormous tab that gets settled at the time of death. Sure, there is a total savings if someone dies early, but it does nothing to mitigate treatment now. This is a painfully simple concept in economics.


Cost could go either way. If the person had an ailment that was not diagnosed correctly and now is being able to get it under control is much cheaper than trying different meds, medical test, missing work, etc...
You are thinking like PeshakJang and missing the forest for the tree.



Not true. If I could invest the money for greater rate of return the mortgage then taking the mortgage would be best. Again the big picture...
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Cost could go either way. If the person had an ailment that was not diagnosed correctly and now is being able to get it under control is much cheaper than trying different meds, medical test, missing work, etc...
You are thinking like PeshakJang and missing the forest for the tree.

Any comment on the CDC figures I posted? You asked for facts, I gave them to you.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Any comment on the CDC figures I posted? You asked for facts, I gave them to you.


What about it? No where did it say that the medical cost were increased due to these. That and Arthritis is prevtable if someone dies sooner. It can come with age due to no outside cause of the person. So I don;t think you know how to read or understand the information as you are trying to connect dots that are not there.
But lets ignore that people die sooner and are cheaper, or that those that drink a lttle actually live longer than those that don;t, etc... Yea damm facts.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Listen very carefully to what you are saying. You are saying that a person's health is mostly as a result of some force, on which they have no influence, and not due to lifestyle decisions that they make.

You said falling off a ladder could be a preventable condition. If 50% of our nation's medical costs resulted from ladder-falling-off-of incidents, would you still say that the problem is with the health care system, or would you say that we need to do something to keep people from falling off of ladders?

What numbers do you want? What report could I possibly show you that will confirm the common-sense idea that people who live healthy lifestyles have lower rates of chronic diseases? What report do you want that says exercise = lower rates of disease X? Do you seriously think this stuff is just made up?

I'll say it again... and I want you to repeat it, because I don't think you really believe it. You are saying that a person's health, in general, is of no result of their choice of lifestyle, diet, or level of activity. They have little to no control over what diseases they are afflicted with.



So you refuse to accept common sense, and instead choose exceptions to the rule to prove your point?

Your point again, for the third time, is that a person's lifestyle does not have a significant impact on their own health.

Yes, people die all the time as a result of unfortunate circumstances. A lot more people die because of decisions they make. I drive every day, and I haven't been killed in a car crash. My chances of getting killed are higher than somebody who drives once a week. My chances of getting killed are lower than a 16 year old who drives like a rally car racer. Admit that at least.

If you run every day... is your chance of a heart attack 0? No. Is it lower than somebody who smokes and sits on his ass all day? Hell yes. Please tell me you can admit this.

the majority of all illnesses, chronic diseases, medical "conditions" are self inflicted.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The G$6 pays for more than just the subsidies their employees receive. If you exclude SS (which theoretically is covered by the payroll tax Walmart and their employees pay), Walmart's biggest tax liability is defense, not Medicaid or subsidized school lunches. I can't tell you exactly what proportion of that G$6 goes to programs their employees might utilize, but I can tell you it's less than G$6.
I never said it was where all the money goes, but if we're looking at proportion of the federal budget as a whole, spending on Medicare/aid are almost equal to the entire defense budget (19% vs 23% according to Wikipedia). Since 17% is listed as "other nondiscretionary" (i.e. primarily SS), this portion can be omitted, bumping 19% to about 23% and you'll find that Walmart is paying just about all of what their employees are using on these programs.
I highly doubt Walmart would pay for their employees' healthcare sans tax. There's really no reason for them to do so unless there's a sudden shortage of unskilled labor. I would think it'd be far cheaper to replace a sick employee than to pay for their healthcare. The anger at Walmart is just misplaced in my opinion. What people are really angry about is the fact that some people have so little value that the cost of providing them healthcare is more than they are worth.

FWIW, I'm opposed to high corporate tax rates. The nominal rate in this country should be brought down to the effective rate and reduced beyond that.

I agree with this. If Walmart is forced to pay taxes in proportion to Medicaid costs, then it's really just socialized medicine for Walmart employees paid for by Walmart profit. I would think that would be an acceptable arrangement for liberals. I personally feel that it would be more constructive to collect these types of taxes from personal income and not corporate taxes, but it is what it is.
Whether or not they would is immaterial for the argument because we'll simply never know. I am inclined to agree that they wouldn't, but who knows? I agree with pretty much everything else you said here. I only jumped in here because I happened to watch a "documentary" on Walmart's practices last night and it was fresh in my mind. :p
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
If the person had an ailment that was not diagnosed correctly and now is being able to get it under control is much cheaper than trying different meds, medical test, missing work, etc...

Now we're entering an area that neither you or studies showing that dead people aren't a drain on health care addressed before. The criteria was about those who had diabetes, not misdiagnosed.

My point stands. How does increasing the number of diabetics relative to healthy people decrease the costs that people have to pay now? It doesn't, because recouping costs 30 or more years down the road does not pay for today's bill. If you want to say "The total amount of money spent over 50 years, is less if diabetics die rather than live" I could agree with that from an academic perspective however that does not mitigate the increased up front expenses associated with treating that which was not a problem before.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
What about it? No where did it say that the medical cost were increased due to these.

If a medical condition doesn't exist, you don't have to pay for its treatment... do you? :confused:

That and Arthritis is prevtable if someone dies sooner. It can come with age due to no outside cause of the person. So I don;t think you know how to read or understand the information as you are trying to connect dots that are not there.

You've got to be drunk, because you aren't making a lick of sense anymore. I never said everything was 100% preventable. My point, backed up by the facts from the CDC, is that a very large percentage of medical expenditures in this country are due to mostly preventable, chronic conditions. If we reduced the number of people requiring treatment by even 10%, that would be a huge, HUGE savings in dollars.

But lets ignore that people die sooner and are cheaper, or that those that drink a lttle actually live longer than those that don;t, etc... Yea damm facts.

Ok, done. You're an idiot, we got that. Thanks for playing.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,630
82
91
I never said it was where all the money goes, but if we're looking at proportion of the federal budget as a whole, spending on Medicare/aid are almost equal to the entire defense budget (19% vs 23% according to Wikipedia). Since 17% is listed as "other nondiscretionary" (i.e. primarily SS), this portion can be omitted, bumping 19% to about 23% and you'll find that Walmart is paying just about all of what their employees are using on these programs.

Medicare should be wrapped up in payroll taxes as well.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The only thing outrageous about it is it's not called workfare. If people have to do some work virtually all fraud would disappear and it would act as an incentive to get a real job type job since you have to show up 8 hrs a day anyway so why not make some real money.

Right now I could get medicaid instead of paying $1300 mo... just move all assets to mom and dad pay myself $10 an hour and 3 kids a wife are all getting it. I don't do it because I don't like looking over shoulder...best to do stuff by the book..but I know many who do. Also drug dealer and other black marketers all are on it since they have no income.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Oooh that $2 dolla really contributin a lot yo!!! VTECs kickin in on the repubo-tardo-meter!

Bill Gates contributes towards millions of people's medicaid. You don't count as shit.

Not hardly - Bill gates never paid himself more than $400,000 of earned income in his life. Capital gains and unearned income is not assessed medicaid taxes so bulk of his cash was unassessed. You're average basketball player pays more in medicaid in one year than Bill G in a lifetime.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Someone else who busts ass 40+ hours a week is paying for you. Next time you see someone with a job, make sure to thank them for giving you money.

I'll likely be yelling at them to make more money now that my own income is well above the national average. If I didn't have free health care, I would have had to pay for my hospital visit after having a hardcore seizure (caused by pesticide getting into the building ventilation system). Money set aside for my education would have gone to the hospital, and I would still be working at McDonalds or some other bullshit uneducated job. Right now I work for a multibillion dollar consulting engineering company ;)


(related to thyroid function)

So why don't you go out and buy them their medication?

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/produc...fm?pcatid=9722

7 cents a pill for .5 mg. You can get them 500 pills for $35, and they can go live a productive life.

If you and your friends can't afford $35 for a life changing prescription, then I am sorry, you're all fucked. I'm sure they could take 5 minutes and find something for $35 that they don't need otherwise. Don't tell me you can't pay any fucking taxes, then tell me I need to pay for your friends' $35 pills.

Your ignorance of how health care works is very upsetting. To get a prescription for thyroxine, you need to verify that you actually have low thyroid function. This includes a doctor visit to get a referal for blood tests, you get the blood test, you see the doctor for a follow up, you get repeated blood tests to confirm the results over several months and you see the doctor each time, THEN you get a diagnosis of thyroid problems. It takes thousands and thousands of dollars to get a prescription for thyroxine.

If your own doctor is willing to give you thyroxine after 1 doctor visit with absolutely no blood testing, then I think it's time you find a doctor who actually has a medical license and isn't a fucking retard. Giving thyroxine to someone who doesn't need it can kill them.


Do you honestly want an answer to that question, or are you joking? Poor health is a major cost of health care. Don't try to change my words, son.
ARrrrgggg how can people be this retarded? Like seriously. I don't know 1 person who has weight related health problems, but I know a fuck load of people who have lots of other medical problems. I have chronic hypoglycemia and I take medication for it, my girlfriend had a problem where her knee cap wouldn't stay in place and she needed surgery to fix it, I know people with thyroid problems, my mom had surgery for some bowel problem that involved removing a significant portion of her digestive system, my dad had an inflamed appendix surgically removed, my brother broke his arm while skiing because he's was "being healthy" as you suggest, my uncle died from prostate cancer, one of my friends was in a car accident and needed months of physiotherapy, etc. None of us have weight related problems. Shit like bone cancer is not caused by weight, having gland problems like hashimoto's thyroiditis is not caused by weight, type 1 diabetes is not caused by weight (type 1 diabetics are often very skinny because they are literally starving to death).
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Great story. (cost of smoking)

We should encourage people to smoke and eat more because they will die at an earlier age thus saving us money in the long run.
That's a policy I think most of us can get behind. Lots of the bitching about smoking and McDonalds is because people think people dying is overall bad for society. Well it turns out smoking and being obese are only bad if you smoke or are obese. For everyone who doesn't smoke, smokers are awesome. Their dying early means the government pension can pay out a lot more to people who don't smoke, true? It also means there's more money for health care for people who don't smoke. I don't smoke, but I love smokers. The taxes in this city are unbelievably high; 25 cigarettes cost $12. Smokers probably paid for the expansion of the ring road and LRT systems. I drive on that ring road every day and I'll likely be working with the LRT system in the future :D


Unhealthy people live shorter and causes extinction of human race.
Smokers die after they've had enough children to replace themselves ;)


$2?

You dont know jack shit, obviously
I think what he means is that the top 1% in the US pay approximately 50% of the taxes. The top 10% pay 90% of the taxes. Those are numbers from the IRS, not some random stuff I heard on Fox News. If you're an "average" or slightly above average American, your taxes may or may not cover your expenses. Most of the population is actually a burden on the tax system.


Think about the people who are typically on Medicaid and the environment within which they live. What type of food is most accessible?
???
They eat the same food that I eat, and I just stated in a previous post that I make good money these days. I eat white rice, beans, store brand pasta, powdered cheese (it's not actually cheese), hamburger, and grape drink. Probably the only expensive items ballers like me eat are cheese, milk, and processed meat. I think cheese and milk might only be expensive in Canada, and processed meat (ie vacuum packed Hungarian sausage) is actually more expensive than t-bone steak.


An estimated 75% of ALL health care costs are related to mostly preventable chronic conditions.
????
Most major conditions are not preventable. Skin and lung cancer are partially unavoidable (ie inhaling asbestos). What about prostate cancer? Breast cancer? Bone cancer? Brain cancer? Lymph cancer? I think there's even a penis cancer but it's rare. Gland disorders like grave's disease are almost never preventable. Accidental injuries are mostly unavoidable since most of them are caused by unavoidable human conditions like boredom, fatigue, tiredness, underlying medical problems, emotional distress, etc. Do you personally take a week off work when your dog dies? Well then that means you're driving your car and going to work when you're emotionally upset. If you fuck up and crash your car because you were thinking about your dog, that's mostly unavoidable.
 
Last edited:

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
????
Most major conditions are not preventable. Skin and lung cancer are partially unavoidable. What about prostate cancer? Breast cancer? Bone cancer? Brain cancer? Lymph cancer? I think there's even a penis cancer but it's rare. Gland disorders like grave's disease are almost never preventable. Accidental injuries are mostly unavoidable since most of them are caused by unavoidable human conditions like boredom, fatigue, tiredness, underlying medical problems, emotional distress, etc. Do you personally take a week off work when your dog dies? Well then that means you're driving your car and going to work when you're emotionally upset. If you fuck up and crash your car because you were thinking about your dog, that's mostly unavoidable.

I'm going to say this slowely, again, in response to both your posts, since you are obviously missing my point again and again.

I put forward the fact (read that again, FACT) as supported by CDC statistics, that near 75% of medical expenditures in this country are put toward the treatment of chronic conditions, of which a very significant number can be prevented or mitigated by an individual's choice of lifestyle (activity, diet, alcohol, smoking, etc.).

Your response to that is to list a whole bunch of conditions which do not fall into that category, even while admitting the rarity of some of them, as if it somehow proved your point. All of this is backed up by your own anecdotal evidence of personal friends and various conditions. Accidental conditions, such as broken bones or a car accident, are accidental, and your personal choices may or may not prevent them (aside from reckless behavior). Chronic conditions, which has been the focus of my argument, account for the overwhelming bulk of health care expenses. Not accidental conditions.

In summary, your main assertion, that most major conditions are not preventable, is refuted at least partially by facts that I have presented. Even some conditions not thought preventable in the past (breast cancer, a pretty major condition), are now thought to be preventable to a degree by exercise and proper diet (see my earlier link).

Are all major conditions preventable? No... but the argument is that a significant number, if not the majority, can be either prevented, or mitigated to some degree, by personal lifestyle choices.

Can every car crash be prevented? No... but if everybody drove the speed limit and never drove under the influence, car accident rates would go down... no?
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
I'm going to say this slowely, again, in response to both your posts, since you are obviously missing my point again and again.

I put forward the fact (read that again, FACT) as supported by CDC statistics, that near 75% of medical expenditures in this country are put toward the treatment of chronic conditions, of which a very significant number can be prevented or mitigated by an individual's choice of lifestyle (activity, diet, alcohol, smoking, etc.).

Your response to that is to list a whole bunch of conditions which do not fall into that category, even while admitting the rarity of some of them, as if it somehow proved your point. All of this is backed up by your own anecdotal evidence of personal friends and various conditions. Accidental conditions, such as broken bones or a car accident, are accidental, and your personal choices may or may not prevent them (aside from reckless behavior). Chronic conditions, which has been the focus of my argument, account for the overwhelming bulk of health care expenses. Not accidental conditions.

In summary, your main assertion, that most major conditions are not preventable, is refuted at least partially by facts that I have presented. Even some conditions not thought preventable in the past (breast cancer, a pretty major condition), are now thought to be preventable to a degree by exercise and proper diet (see my earlier link).

Are all major conditions preventable? No... but the argument is that a significant number, if not the majority, can be either prevented, or mitigated to some degree, by personal lifestyle choices.

Can every car crash be prevented? No... but if everybody drove the speed limit and never drove under the influence, car accident rates would go down... no?

Well, eventually, even if you are the healthiest person, you'll be put on life support for a few years when you reach 110. We need to decide right then and there. If you can afford the care, you can be put on life support. If you can't afford it, well you can't afford it.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Well, eventually, even if you are the healthiest person, you'll be put on life support for a few years when you reach 110. We need to decide right then and there. If you can afford the care, you can be put on life support. If you can't afford it, well you can't afford it.

On that topic... I don't know what kind of quantifiable studies have been done on the matter... but we've all seen plenty of stories about people living to old ages and still being healthy and active... just about every one of them attributes it to their diet and exercise throughout their life. It would be interesting to see cost of end-of-care service versus a person's general level of health and activity throughout their life.

How many elderly people live their last years undergoing continuing treatment for chronic diseases? We know this accounts for a good chunk of medical services...
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Do you honestly want an answer to that question, or are you joking? Poor health is a major cost of health care. Don't try to change my words, son.

Thats a frakin no brainer duh.......
Of course poor health is the major cost of health care!!....lololololllll

If everyone was healthy there would be no need for health care....rofl...hahahaaa
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Wellness care will inevitably be part of the new health care landscape in the next decade. The lasgest driving factor will be that the health insurance companies are going to be forced to give you 85 cents of the dollar you pay into your healthcare back to you as coverage or as a refund at the end of year.

This is reason so many want to repeal the health care law. Its disingenuous to call medicare wasteful since it is the most efficient in the sense of cost of administration than any other health care plan or business.

The waste comes from too many tests and defensive medicine which has become the norm.

Whats funny to me is the second the government starts to get behind wellness programs or healthy food programs like Michelle Obama did people start calling her a socialist. The second they try to add in end of life counceling to manage the pain and the suffering of the family so they can make those decisions in a open and informed manner people decry death panels..

If you guys want these issues to go away then get behind single payer.....
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
......In western NY it's not unheard of for people to have to pay 8 or 9K in property taxes annually for a 175K house, and it's not enough. It grows and it grows, and people who can move are, leaving those who aren't affluent or are tied to a job and working picking up the tab.

Ahh, yes, you've done something Dems. You've run this state into the ground, and you aren't done yet.

Is that true? 8 to 9K for a house that is less than 200K? :$

My friend in North Austin, TX is paying around 4K for a nice house of 200K and my relative in Louisiana is paying about 1.5K for a 190K house.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Wellness care will inevitably be part of the new health care landscape in the next decade. The lasgest driving factor will be that the health insurance companies are going to be forced to give you 85 cents of the dollar you pay into your healthcare back to you as coverage or as a refund at the end of year.

This is reason so many want to repeal the health care law. Its disingenuous to call medicare wasteful since it is the most efficient in the sense of cost of administration than any other health care plan or business.

The waste comes from too many tests and defensive medicine which has become the norm.

Whats funny to me is the second the government starts to get behind wellness programs or healthy food programs like Michelle Obama did people start calling her a socialist. The second they try to add in end of life counceling to manage the pain and the suffering of the family so they can make those decisions in a open and informed manner people decry death panels..

If you guys want these issues to go away then get behind single payer.....
Not to mention that its recipients have no financial motivation to reduce their risks. As long as someone else is paying the bill, no one cares how much it costs.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Note that I've said that I'm not against social support programs, but as they are instituted. I've no problem with you getting assistance at need, but this is the system which is slated for expansion, the one which I had the sad duty of telling a full blown AIDS patient that he couldn't access his medicaid benefits because the state screwed up and wouldn't let anyone bill them. That's the same system. People get a couple hundred bucks per child with no restrictions which were used for smokes, alcohol and HDTVs. I know you remember that one.

You know that people are living in the inner cities who are having generation after generation of children, with no motivation to change. That's the same system.

Tell me, what reforms have you seen instituted to change these things? I've seen none, yet people are paying 10k a year taxes on sub-200k homes and it's not enough. Could you justify the status quo to them? I could not.


As far as Marlin, he's not thinking and I'll prove it if he answers this question.


Supposing that in 2011 there was 25% increase of incidence of diabetes in the population.

Would the cost of health care go up that year or down, and why?

Oh I know you aren't against social support systems, I just merely was pointing out that you were speaking in very broad generalizations. I do not support status quo (said in that same post that Medicaid needs reform).

There are larger systemic issues at play that exist to keep those generations in the same place, and I do not believe that social support programs are the sole cause (or even a primary one) of the problems facing low SES families.
 
Last edited: