Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[JMS]

Your comment wasn't entirely true

You said:

"Our spending per capita difference is entirely based upon the fact that our services cost more, not that our institutions provide more services."

I'm saying the post that includes that statement isn't entirely true. ).

Ok, you are right.. not entirely... primarily.

Edited June 29, 2012 by JMS

[AsburySkinsFan]

Edited June 30, 2012 by AsburySkinsFan

[PeterMP]

Ok, you are right.. not entirely... primarily.

I think the primary driver of the difference in health care costs is the independent and fractured way in which pay for, supply, distribute, and even produce health care.

I think that the "paper work" that is required to keep track of who got where when by whom and who paid how much increases costs significantly over single payer systems like those in Canada.

I suspect that many of these other countries function like France where things like medical school is paid for (and run) by the government.

And so again there is no need to keep track of who paid whom and how much to what entity for what and when.

I'm pretty sure that most health care related industries (I will admit that I'm not sure about all of them, for example, malpractice insurance providers) do not have earnings out of line with respect to other more "normal" industries in the US (I can go back and find the post where I've provided you this data before if you'd like).

I will point out that for every country of know for the data I last saw that health care costs have been going up faster than inflation/GDP for a while. I believe very recently,including the US, this trend has at least slowed (partly because of the economic slow down and partly because of a slow down in new technology/medicines).

Edited June 30, 2012 by PeterMP

[Koolblue13]

[twa]

survey says people believe ins costs will go up as a result....even in Liberal California

http://www.surveyusa.com/

as Jumbo said...Good Luck to us

we are gonna need it.

[Larry]

I believe costs will go up.

But then, since costs have been going up every year I've been alive, (and probably since Jesus rode the dinosaur), that's not saying much, is it?

[GSF]

Is there a concise, non-bias description of Obamacare out there?

[Larry]

Is there a concise, non-bias description of Obamacare out there?

I think you can have concise, or non-biased, but not both.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Is there a concise, non-bias description of Obamacare out there?

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/index.html

[Thiebear]

I believe costs will go up.

But then, since costs have been going up every year I've been alive, (and probably since Jesus rode the dinosaur), that's not saying much, is it?

The architect the health care bill said for 59% of currentl policyholders healthcare will rise 30+% as they are in plans that don't meet the minimum requirements of the government and will have to buy better plans. This is including the credits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/business/health-insurance-costs-rise-sharply-this-year-study-shows.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Edited July 1, 2012 by Thiebear

[Larry]

The architect the health care bill said for 59% of currentl policyholders healthcare will rise 30+% as they are in plans that don't meet the minimum requirements of the government and will have to buy better plans. This is including the credits.

Agree that that's one of the factors that affest the statistics: People who will wind up paying more, but will also get better coverage.

I'll also observe that every time a person who wasn't insured, buys insurance, then the "average person's health insurance costs" go up, because that person used to be averaged into the statistic as a zero.

[tiger187126]

I've read a lot of this stuff and it really sounds like hyperbole to me because I can't think of a single time I have seen someone give specific, plausible examples. How, specifically, will this bill deprive you of your freedom, your safety, your equality, your personal welfare, etc? I mean specifics, not just vague slogans like "government overreach" or what not.

sorry i was off for a few days and this is a big matza ball to leave hanging.

this bill enforces (doesn't create) an article that says the government may tax us for anything it deems best for the people. this case will be used in the future for other laws like excess taxes on sugar/alcohol/tobacco etc. because if they say now that health care is an unacceptable cost, they will (and states already have) say that other things represent an unacceptable cost as well so the taxpayers will have to pay more and with the way our government works they could tax us 100% and ban everything and still wind up broke.

my post was saying that no matter who is president next year or anytime in the future we will continue to be run more and more like the government we tried to escape from to begin with.

the issue with the people who cheer at things is everything is hunkey dorey until it affects you personally, if it doesn't and you believe (or are led to believe) that it helps other people then why the hell not. if it's an issue you already have preconceived biased opinions about then double good.

guns are easily a polarizing issue (sweeping generalizations to follow). people who have them enjoy having them and would like to keep them and have the ability to legally obtain more. people who don't have them see no need for them and could care less if they were banned. looking at an issue like what kind of guns you're allowed to buy can lead the non-gun side to think that the gun side is a bunch of nutbags who want to shoot up a post office.

pot is another polarizing issue (ditto). people who smoke pot say there's absolutely nothing wrong with it and most of the time treat it as if it weren't illegal. non-pot smokers say that it is illegal and you shouldn't be doing it because of it's illegality and they should crack down harder on it. looking at this issue, smokers say pot laws are unfair and they're not hurting anyone, while non-smokers say you should shut your hippy ass up and cut your damn hair.

so only when an issue applies to you or you have strong feelings about it do you actually notice the agenda against it, or claim that there is one. i mean how many NFL fans shed a tear when goodell took our cap space? they all said who cares, that's what they get, look we get some extra cap money, goodell is great. then the bounty programs same deal. only the affected fans really cared enough to display outrage, while the other teams' fan's were pacified with cap money or the weakening of a possible opponent.

and for the usurping of power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganization_Act_of_1939

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration

etc.

some of those are old, and some more recent, but they all gave the executive branch and/or federal government more power and they all affect us today. it's not hyperbole, it's the truth. people applauded the new deal, but how many people now decry social security? patriot act was looked at as a way to stop 9/11 from ever happening again and now it's the ultimate spy weapon for our government. as long as we get one bust every few months the TSA is just a safety net, not an overbearing big brother.

i hope i avoided vague slogans, but this is just going to continue. remember how crazy and paranoid you would have sounded 15 years ago if you said that you would have to have a full body scan to get on an airplane?

everyone is a conspiracy theorist or nut until it comes true, but by then there's a dangling carrot to distract people who don't want to look hard enough.

[Thiebear]

Agree that that's one of the factors that affest the statistics: People who will wind up paying more, but will also get better coverage.

I'll also observe that every time a person who wasn't insured, buys insurance, then the "average person's health insurance costs" go up, because that person used to be averaged into the statistic as a zero.

The fact didn't average in people that didn't have insurance. Thats a huge increase for something we were told would go down...

I think we should have just given the 2trillion being spent given out

Total Number of All U.S. Registered Hospitals: 6000,

Total Number of Accredited Medical Schools: 129

Couldn't find Medical Clinics so lets 10x that amount 60,000

30 million dollars per institute to set everything back to zero: (go back to non-profit as before Reagan?)

for that kind of money:

Hospitals-clinic and enforced that items now cost what you can get them for at WalMart/Target:

Aspirin will be a nickle, bedsheets will be free with the 90$ room fee for the night, an xray will be the cost of the machine over 5 years per click.

then we can go in and get a checkup no different than a night in a hotel or a trip to Disneyworld if you stay a while...

if it cost me 40$ for a checkup and or another 90$ if i want other things checked I would go often and everyone would actually make money.

right now its 5000$ a night in 1/2 of a room with 90$ per Tylenol making it impossible for any procedure to be paid for by 98% of us so there is no way to catch up. This bill fixes quite a few ways people are treated, but doesn't seem to fix the fact nobody can sustain the huge cost.

/end pre-coffee rant...

Edited July 1, 2012 by Thiebear

[mjah]

The fact didn't average in people that didn't have insurance. Thats a huge increase for something we were told would go down...

Nobody ever told me that. Not relative to present-day costs. Savings were always discussed in terms of what we would otherwise be paying years from now, had nothing been done.

Which is not to say that our health care cost problems are all buttoned up and solved now. But nobody ever told me to expect average cost of health care premiums per person to go down today.

In fact, I recall acknowledgements that the cost of health care would continue to increase no matter what we did, bill or no bill. It was always a matter of the down-the-line costs we would end up with if we did nothing, vs. how present-day action could help us to improve in comparison with that future disaster.

Time will tell where the hospital's per-night cost goes, and that will be partially a function of how many unpaid visits hospitals must cover. We ought to shine as bright a light on this as we did on the more predatory practices of health care coverage providers. But certain legislators, now more than ever, will have theoretically limitless financial incentives to make sure that doesn't happen. We can't lay that at the feet of a new law which was designed to make the payment system more humane to those who need it most, and curb the most egregious excesses of the businesses who allow us to lay bets against our own good health.

[ixcuincle]

Watching CNN "Reliable Sources"

Good breakdown of CNN and Fox News gaffes of "jumping the gun"

As a broadcasting nerd I actually care more about the coverage and the analysis of cable news networks rather than the actual decision itself :geek:

[DCranon21]

So Mitch says 30 million uninsured Americans are not the issue on Fox News Sunday. :wtf: I want to know what is the issue then??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/mitch-mcconnell-uninsured-obamacare_n_1641033.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

WASHINGTON -- Republicans have said repeatedly that the landmark health care reform law, upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court last week, must be repealed and replaced. But the GOP leader in the U.S. Senate gave a surprising answer on "Fox News Sunday" when asked how Republicans would provide health care coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.

"That is not the issue," Sen. Mitch McConnell said. "The question is how to go step by step to improve the American health care system. It is already the finest health care system in the world."

"Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace interrupted, "You don't think 30 million uninsured is an issue?"

"We're not going to turn the American health care system into a western European system," McConnell said. "That's exactly what is at the heart of Obamacare. They want to ... have the federal government take over all American health care. The federal government can't handle Medicare or Medicaid.

Edited July 1, 2012 by DCranon21

[Larry]

There's a pic going around of Obama recreating the "Dewey Defeats Truman" pose, holding up a tablet displaying CNN's web page.

[DCranon21]

There's a pic going around of Obama recreating the "Dewey Defeats Truman" pose, holding up a tablet displaying CNN's web page.

Yeah Larry, that's a pretty sweet picture. I got a chuckle out of that one.

[ixcuincle]

CNN apologized, but FOX News didn't

[Thiebear]

Mjah: Maybe i misunderstood because i thought the primary goal was to 'reduce costs' and cover people not covered.

June 6, 2009

Obama's Weekly Address: Goals for Health Care Reform By Barack Obama

This week, I conveyed to Congress my belief that any health care reform must be built around fundamental reforms that lower costs, improve quality and coverage, and also protect consumer choice. That means if you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you'll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.

I also made it very clear to Congress that we must develop a plan that doesn't add to our budget deficit. My budget included an historic down payment on reform, and we'll work with Congress to fully cover the costs through rigorous spending reductions and appropriate additional revenues. We'll eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our health care system, but we'll also take on key causes of rising costs - saving billions while providing better care to the American people.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/06/obamas_weekly_address_goals_for_health_care_reform_96879.html

--------------------------------------------------------

Nowhere could i find: 3% a year to 9% a year and a 30% increase in premiums for now and a decade from now it should be better?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Thiebear

[tiger187126]

anyone want to tackle trump's rant:

Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the hell could possibly go wrong?

besides the fact that he is a fan of broader healthcare (from his book in 2000), how about someone break down his little rant.

where's yusurf when i need him?!

[AsburySkinsFan]

anyone want to tackle trump's rant:

besides the fact that he is a fan of broader healthcare (from his book in 2000), how about someone break down his little rant.

where's yusurf when i need him?!

Here's my translation.

"Blah blah blah, I'm a narcissistic putz, blah blah blah, I tried to be President but more people laughed at me than voted for me, blah blah blah, pay attention to me, blah blah blah, I'm an attention whore who cannot stand that the national media all but ignores me, so I need to periodically say something unintelligible just to keep people talking about me, blah blah blah."

[Jumbo]

Re: The Trumpeting jackass....I regularly note there is a staggering number of serious douchenozzzles who are quite prosperous.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Jumbo

[Mad Mike]

Re: The Trumpeting jackass....I regularly note there is a staggering number of serious douchenozzzles who are quite prosperous.

Come on Jumbo. Haven't you learned by now that the only real measure of a man is how much money they have?

[DieselPwr44]

Here's my translation.

"Blah blah blah, I'm a narcissistic putz, blah blah blah, I tried to be President but more people laughed at me than voted for me, blah blah blah, pay attention to me, blah blah blah, I'm an attention whore who cannot stand that the national media all but ignores me, so I need to periodically say something unintelligible just to keep people talking about me, blah blah blah."

Re: The Trumpeting jackass....I regularly note there is a staggering number of serious douchenozzzles who are quite prosperous.

Come on Jumbo. Haven't you learned by now that the only real measure of a man is how much money they have?

Edited July 1, 2012 by DieselPwr44