Ooooopps, looks like health care reform wont actually save any money

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Your just a one trick pony, aren't you. Read the thread for your answer instead of trolling. At this point this bill is just "a foot in the door" to get afforadable insurance to everyone. I don't know if it will work or not and neither do you but my advice to you is to be careful of what you wish for, you may get it.

It isn't going to be "affordable" for anyone, that's the point you can't seem to grasp, or are just intentionally ignoring because it isn't convenient, the foot is going to get broken when the door slams shut.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Got any real numbers to back that up?

Read the CBO report (widely available) - they said Obamacare will save about $900 billion (iirc).

My reading of the HHS report indicates that it's describing the trajectory of health care expenditures under Obamacare, from today to 2020. It's not comparing the trajectories of health care spending over that period with and without Obamacare.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I'm not your pruppet troll boy.

I asked you to expalin to me why the USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA).

Put up or shut up.

You continue to embarrass yourself by bringing up something without being able to explain causation then demand that I do it for you.

Simply put, one who makes a statement is obliged to explain himself or look like a fool. That's not my rule. That's how it works. For my part, I'm perfectly content to listen to your reasoned response. After all you did bring this up.

I knew you had three options here. You would either ignore, divert or explain. I doubted that the last would be your response, and I was correct. You diverted.

Now will you ignore or divert again, or will you attempt to gain some small bit of respect not from me, but from those who read these forums and show what backs your contention?

Can you show intelligence or will you fall back on diatribe?
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
YOUR BILL will actually INCREASE their profits, but it will do so at OUR INCREASED EXPENSE.

What are your thoughts on that point?

He won't answer it. These idiots who supported the bill that passed do so for partisan reasons (ie, Obama and Pelosi told them it was good!), not because they know (or even understand) what it does. I love the "well it is a start!" line of thinking as well. Good luck with true reform ever happening!
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Read the CBO report (widely available) - they said Obamacare will save about $900 billion (iirc).

Did you see post #97 in this thread? They take money from other programs to get that score. Its actually costing us TONS OF MONEY. Look at the clip I posted, refute those claims. Until you do, stop spreading your FUD.

So the claim that Obamacare "doesn't save any money" is false. It DOES save money.

Thats a flat out lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WOLkfnIlXI&feature=channel

Skip to 2:30. I challenge you to refute his claims. Until you do, dont say this bill saves money. Thats the biggest crock of shit.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Your just a one trick pony, aren't you. Read the thread for your answer instead of trolling. At this point this bill is just "a foot in the door" to get afforadable insurance to everyone. I don't know if it will work or not and neither do you but my advice to you is to be careful of what you wish for, you may get it.

Once again you completely avoided the question, more than likely due to the inherent and obvious contradiction in your talking points. What a waste of time...
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I'm not your pruppet troll boy.

I asked you to expalin to me why the USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA).

Put up or shut up.

What is the ethnic/racial diversity like in all of those countries listed compared to the USA............
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Read the CBO report (widely available) - they said Obamacare will save about $900 billion (iirc).

My reading of the HHS report indicates that it's describing the trajectory of health care expenditures under Obamacare, from today to 2020. It's not comparing the trajectories of health care spending over that period with and without Obamacare.

They are ignoring the color of money.

While it may save $900B from one bucket; it is costing the consumer well over $900B from two other buckets.

The net cost is the key once the blinders are taken off.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Well, yeah, but no one really made an effort to define the current state of health care, explore options and give a best effort estimate of reform.

This is policare.

That takes time and the end result may not be what they want to hear.
But is the questions have been asked, the answers will eventually be found and embarress those that wanted the questions asked.

From their point, it is better to pretend to be ignorant, then to prove it.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Read the CBO report (widely available) - they said Obamacare will save about $900 billion (iirc).

My reading of the HHS report indicates that it's describing the trajectory of health care expenditures under Obamacare, from today to 2020. It's not comparing the trajectories of health care spending over that period with and without Obamacare.

I haven't read the actual report (couldn't find a direct link), so I'm not sure if you're right or not.

However, the real problem with this thread is that its premise is a false assumption and a gigantic straw man. When Obama and the dems talked about lowering healthcare costs, they were talking about reducing premiums - meaning that healthcare would cost less per unit of services delivered. They were not talking about reducing total aggregate healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP. Sometimes they cited the large percentage of GDP that healthcare spending comprised to illustrate the problem. However, I can't recall them ever claiming that a healthcore reform bill, which which bring access 10's of millions of people, would actually reduce total aggregate spending on healthcare. Such a claim would have been extraorindary considering all new the people who would gain access.

The healthcare law will ensure about 34 million more people. Of course it it going to increase total healthcare spending. DUH. The question is whether and to what extent it will reduce the price of healthcare (and most particularly, health insurance).

There are three separate issues which have been repeatedly conflated in P&N threads by people who think they are "refuting" the dems' claims. The first is the issue of lowering the cost of healthcare (this is a claim they actually made). The second is the issue of total healthcare spending in the economy (this claim I have not heard them make by am open to being corrected on this). The third has to do with what the law would do to government spending, meaning specifically the deficit. These are three separate issues, and quite honestly, I don't see any point in carrying on a discussion with anyone who cannot see the distinctions among them, and persists in trying refute an apple by citing an orange, an orange by citing a peach.

- wolf
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
i'll bet new required paperwork eats up any potential savings just like HIPPA.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Ooooopps, looks like health care reform wont actually save any money



I don't recall anyone saying it was going to save any money.

I do recall that it will make many not paying anything will have to pay and those that have been paying having to pay more.
Brain damage and hard drug use can both cause loss of memory. I'm just sayin' . . .

How about Whitehouse.gov

"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government"
-PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Source might be a little biased though ;)

Notice he said it will lower the cost of health care for OUR families, OUR businesses, and OUR government. The vast majority of us are not "OUR" to the progressives, we're "THEM". As in THEY aren't paying enough, THEY need to pay THEIR fair share, THEY are destroying Mother Gaia, THEY need to share THEIR wealth . . . Obamacare will reduce the costs of health for unions, the bone idle, probably eventually government workers through tax-funded subsidies and preferential treatment. That's whom the Messiah is referencing when he says "OUR".
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
No one here has a clue why health care costs what it does in the US.

It is interesting that when it comes to the rate of increase of health care costs, we're not at the top. Not nearly. The other systems are racing to catch up with us.

I think our US health care costs so much for five reasons. Foremost is our lifestyle - we are wilder, meaner, and more free than any of those nations. We eat more than is healthy, especially meat, fat, salt and sugar. We drive more - and faster. We are more violent (and better armed.) We are more drug addicted. We are more black - just learning how to extend the average black lifespan to parity with whites would give us parity with those other countries, let alone the moral component. In short, we are the wild animal that most of our domesticated foreign brethren once were. And like any wild animal, our life is shorter than our leashed cousins. I for one prefer freedom to captivity, but there's no denying that once we too are broken to the leash, more fully managed by government, our life span will increase and our medical costs will go down.

The second major factor is sophistication - we have more sophisticated equipment, and much more of it per capita, than do other nations with socialized medicine. We don't like to wait, and we expect the best. There's a reason that in Canada you can get your dog an MRI more quickly than yourself.

The third major reason is our lack of competition. Most states like to keep a firm handle on availability, so that most areas only have a couple of major players. Thus the only required innovation and efficiency is that required to compete with your major competition. Smaller, more innovative competition can be controlled with political donations which spur regulations and laws.

Fourth is our decoupling of health care and paying for health care. Coupled with our entitlement mentality we have come to view health insurance not as something that protects us from unexpected major expenses, but rather as someone else paying our day to day health care costs. That leads us to demand the best but expect to pay the least.

And the fifth is our hybrid system - we have a horrendous amount of hoops to jump through in our system of patches, which leads to a high cost of compliance. Any system newly designed is always going to work better, at least for awhile, than a system patched and tweaked, often no reasons which have nothing to do with health care.

So profit isn't a large part of the costs of health care, but it's responsible for why it costs so much?