or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 3

post #81 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

If the private corporate world could do it right, we would already be saving money, not careening toward the financial abyss.

Wait...

When looking into areas of medicine that lack government involvement, prices continue to come down and quality continues to go up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

If the private corporate world could do it right, we would already be saving money, not careening toward the financial abyss.

Wait...

Of course you're ignoring how government efforts distort the market.
post #83 of 2360
Take it from someone in their 50's who just had a major health problem ( bad hypertension 218 over 145 at it's worst 2 years ago ). Yes it's under control however I know first hand doctors do unnecessary tests....alot! Probably due to kickbacks.

This is exactly what Obama was talking about last night. Making decisions based on money not medical need.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #84 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Take it from someone in their 50's who just had a major health problem ( bad hypertension 218 over 145 at it's worst 2 years ago ). Yes it's under control however I know first hand doctors do unnecessary tests....alot! Probably due to kickbacks.

This is exactly what Obama was talking about last night. Making decisions based on money not medical need.

What kickbacks do you think they are getting? What pathway does the money take and how would you respond to the notion that they were actually practicing defensive medicine?

Let's not touch on self referral.
post #85 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Take it from someone in their 50's who just had a major health problem ( bad hypertension 218 over 145 at it's worst 2 years ago ). Yes it's under control however I know first hand doctors do unnecessary tests....alot! Probably due to kickbacks.

This is exactly what Obama was talking about last night. Making decisions based on money not medical need.

So, you're against unnecessary things that cost money and don't provide benefit...

You sure you're not a conservative?
post #86 of 2360
Mr. Obama, here's another reality check.

FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?

Quote:
President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.

Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.

A look at some of Obama's claims in his prime-time news conference:

OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."

THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.

Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.

It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.

He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."

He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions."

OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.

Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."

OBAMA: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

THE FACTS: The facts are in dispute between black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the white police sergeant who arrested him at his Cambridge, Mass., home when officers went there to investigate a reported break-in. But this much is clear: Gates wasn't arrested for being in his own home, as Obama implies, but for allegedly being belligerent when the sergeant demanded his identification. The president did mention that the professor was charged with disorderly conduct. Charges were dropped.

OBAMA: "If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion."

THE FACTS: Obama's numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president's budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #87 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

But suddenly government can't be trusted with our health care.

No, government can't be trusted with our health care. This is a proven FACT.

Who Will Keep Government-Run Insurance Honest?

Quote:
President Obama again trumpeted his claim last night, that we need government-run health insurance to help keep the insurance companies honest. He should check with his own Justice Department about dishonesty in government-run health plans.

The state and city governments in New York this week agreed to pay a $540-million fine, $440-million from the state and $100-million from the city, to settle accusations that they defrauded Medicaid. Its a record-high Medicaid recovery from a public entity.

According to the Department of Justice press release, the governments knowingly submitted fraudulent claims.

The case had been under seal for ten years, according to media reports. But it wasnt government that uncovered the mess. A speech therapist, Hedy M. Cirrincione, blew the whistle ten years ago and started private whistleblower lawsuits which the government eventually took over. A federal audit questioned over $1-billion in claims from the New York governments.

The whistle-blower is to receive $10-million of the recovery for her efforts.

As Reuters reports:

Quote:
the claims involved reimbursement for school-based health care services, primarily speech therapy and transportation, provided to Medicaid-eligible children from 1990 to 2001.

The settlement represented a record federal recovery by the department for the Medicaid program, under which the federal government shares the cost of medical services for the poor and disabled with the states.

The programs at issue were developed jointly by New Yorks education and health departments to assist local school districts, counties, and other schools in obtaining Medicaid reimbursement for covered diagnostic and health support services provided to students with disabilities.

The settlement resolved allegations the state passed on claims to the federal government for services it knew were not covered or properly documented, the department said.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #88 of 2360
trumptman:

Quote:
When looking into areas of medicine that lack government involvement, prices continue to come down and quality continues to go up.

For instance?


FloorJack:

Quote:
Of course you're ignoring how government efforts distort the market.

For instance?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #89 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:



For instance?

Compare the cost (inflation adjusted) and quality for something like Lasik eye surgery now compared to 10-15 years ago.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #90 of 2360
Quote:
Compare the cost (inflation adjusted) and quality for something like Lasik eye surgery now compared to 10-15 years ago.

In what sense does Lasik "lack government involvement"? It is regulated by the government.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #91 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

In what sense does Lasik "lack government involvement"? It is regulated by the government.

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between regulation and management.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #92 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

In what sense does Lasik "lack government involvement"? It is regulated by the government.

It is considered elective and cosmetic and thus does not have any sort of government entity referring people for it and distorting market mechanisms for determining price.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 2360
jazzguru:

Quote:
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between regulation and management.

There sure is. We were discussing "government involvement".


trumptman:

Quote:
It is considered elective and cosmetic and thus does not have any sort of government entity referring people for it and distorting market mechanisms for determining price.

And since it is an unnecessary procedure there is an actual market for it that can be guided by somewhat free and fair competition. Necessary healthcare cannot follow the same path because we cannot make basic healthcare elective.

Well, we could, but that would be a fairly major step backwards.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #94 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:
And since it is an unnecessary procedure there is an actual market for it that can be guided by somewhat free and fair competition. Necessary healthcare cannot follow the same path because we cannot make basic healthcare elective.

Well, we could, but that would be a fairly major step backwards.

Whoa there pilgrim. I provide what you ask for and then have the goal posts moved.

The real issue and this is part of what is feared so much with rationed health care is that increasingly health care is not at all about what is necessary and is about quality of life matters.

If the government were out of the health care field, I have no doubt that the wheelchair that grandma would have gotten in the 1960's when her crippled up arthritic joints no longer allowed her to walk would be both cheaper and of higher quality when sold today. The reality is that today grandma will be looking for two hip replacements so she can attempt walking into her 80's. Those hip replacements aren't necessary but people want the choice of paying more instead of the government handing them a wheelchair. When the government won't get out of the way, the government promises the same care to people who can't afford it and thus we are all going broke. This becomes even more true when the government lowers reimbursement rates and cost shifting occurs.

Again the government already controls a large portion of health care and mismanages it. They should simply do right in that instance, control the costs, engage in the rationing and we should be able to see and choose the result. But it is not credible to say that their handling of X% of national health care which is bankrupting us would work out just fine if only they were given a much large slice.

Have government be credible. Tell grandpa on medicare that he is 78 and that he doesn't get that very expensive quadruple bypass. Tell grandma she is 82 and there is not enough of a return on dollars spent to justify her knee or hip replacements. Give one the comfort meds and send him home and buy the other one a wheelchair and do the same.

Let the government handle the percentage it already has now without bankrupting us and then they have the credibility to ask for more.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #95 of 2360
Quote:
If the government were out of the health care field, I have no doubt that the wheelchair that grandma would have gotten in the 1960's when her crippled up arthritic joints no longer allowed her to walk would be both cheaper and of higher quality when sold today.

How would grandma afford the wheelchair without "the government"?

Quote:
Let the government handle the percentage it already has now without bankrupting us and then they have the credibility to ask for more.

This would make sense if the private insurance world and the public insurance world operated on the same playing field. Right now public insurance is only available to the two most high-risk groups in the nation; the elderly and the very poor.

Public insurance is ridiculously expensive right now and they are even allowed to refuse people with pre-existing conditions and kick people off the rolls with technicalities and loopholes. It takes a lot of nerve to talk about "credibility" when America's private insurers do such a terrible job managing what easy task they currently have, which is to get money from the young and relatively healthy.

Your evidence for an efficient all-private system is your own belief, not anything real.

I can point to the myriad more successful and efficient systems all over the world in support of a public/private mix that the people can actually choose to buy into.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #96 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

How would grandma afford the wheelchair without "the government"?

Well there used to be this concept called saving. It was what we did before we became the world's largest debtor nation.

Quote:
This would make sense if the private insurance world and the public insurance world operated on the same playing field. Right now public insurance is only available to the two most high-risk groups in the nation; the elderly and the very poor.

So how does that suddenly become solved by adding in lower-risk groups unless you are just being honest and talking about "health" transfers just like you do income transfers? Those two groups are not going to stop being high risk just because you add other groups. The real point of all this is to add those other groups so that their lower risk can subsidize the higher risk. Just about everyone gets this and so they answer no to the choice.

If the costs cannot be controlled within the high risk group, then adding in lower risk groups will not fix this, and thus everyone gets that it is about tricking people into a subsidy. There is no savings. If they proved the savings, people wouldn't have to be sold on it.

Quote:
Public insurance is ridiculously expensive right now and they are even allowed to refuse people with pre-existing conditions and kick people off the rolls with technicalities and loopholes. It takes a lot of nerve to talk about "credibility" when America's private insurers do such a terrible job managing what easy task they currently have, which is to get money from the young and relatively healthy.

I think you meant private insurance. If I'm wrong then I'll address it again. Most insurance today is not insurance, it is much, much more. We are dealing with what has been in place since WWII which is when employer provided insurance came into vogue to circumvent wage controls put in place by... you guessed it, the federal government.

Compare health insurance to most other forms of insurance you carry. If you auto insurance had to pay for oil changes and fuel, how expensive would it be? If your home insurance had to pay for every time the rain gutters needed cleaning and the yard needed mowing, how expensive would it be?

Republicans have put forward an answer to this dozens of times. It is called health savings accounts which also addresses rewarding positive behavior as well. You can buy catastrophic health insurance for much cheaper than "health insurance." Such plans would cover things like being in an auto accident, cancer, heart attacks, etc. but you'd shell out of pocket for things like... chiropractic care which happens to be covered under my current health insurance plan (and yours too probably.)

Such insurance would be much, much cheaper. Such reform could also include dealing with preexisting conditions as well. However if you live in an unhealthful manner and your lifestyle choices reflect this (obesity, smoking, sexual promiscuity, etc.) you should be prepared to pay more out of pocket day to day. If you can't or won't then you are choosing to shorten your life and no one else should be expected to subsidize that choice.

Quote:
Your evidence for an efficient all-private system is your own belief, not anything real.

I can point to the myriad more successful and efficient systems all over the world in support of a public/private mix that the people can actually choose to buy into.

It is real in several other fields. People aren't demanding a public option for home and auto insurance. No one is decrying a "crisis" there. My life insurance is very affordable. My health "insurance" through the state costs roughly double what I could purchase privately for no good reasoning I can understand (beyond perhaps some union bosses getting paid off.)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #97 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

What kickbacks do you think they are getting? What pathway does the money take and how would you respond to the notion that they were actually practicing defensive medicine?

Let's not touch on self referral.

Ok. My family has no history of cancer. None.

It's all cardiovascular stuff. My eye doctor ( who noted that hypertension can affect your eyesight and has mine ) tested me and found I had a loss (slight ) of periferal vision. So he ordered an MRI to make sure I didn't have a brain tumour. The test showed exactly what I knew it would. Nothing. Of course My insurance didn't cover completely so I had to pay for that nothing. Also this is just one of several tests I had to take from different doctors so it was an added burden ( those other tests were an ateempt to find the cause of my hypertension which I can understand ). It just seemed to me that was a big jump in logic since there were no other symptoms or family history.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #98 of 2360
trumptman:

Quote:
Well there used to be this concept called saving. It was what we did before we became the world's largest debtor nation.

So if one saves one will automatically have enough money to cover every future contingency?
Beyond that, you still haven't answered the question: How would grandma be able to afford the chair?

An elderly person needing a wheelchair is, almost by definition, not someone who can contribute economically. Let's assume grandma has saved, but her savings are gone. What now?

Quote:
So how does that suddenly become solved by adding in lower-risk groups unless you are just being honest and talking about "health" transfers just like you do income transfers?

The public assistance received by the elderly and poor right now are already "health transfers". We have that now and we have since before both of us were even born.

There is no solving the problem of being old and being poor; both are states of being that have always been and always will be. The only question is how a society copes intelligently with those two high-risk states of being. Our current system does not work very well, as you would agree.

Quote:
The real point of all this is to add those other groups so that their lower risk can subsidize the higher risk.

This already happens. However, it can be done in a more direct and cost-effective way.
We cannot wish away the old, the sick, and the poor.

Quote:
Republicans have put forward an answer to this dozens of times. It is called health savings accounts which also addresses rewarding positive behavior as well.

The HSA is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Those who can use the HSA are already healthy and have money to save and are, therefore, fairly well served by the current health insurance system that we have. It is not a solution for those with pre-existing conditions. It is not a solution for the elderly. It is not a solution for the poor.

Quote:
People aren't demanding a public option for home and auto insurance. No one is decrying a "crisis" there.

Home and auto insurance are not life requirements.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #99 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:
So if one saves one will automatically have enough money to cover every future contingency?
Beyond that, you still haven't answered the question: How would grandma be able to afford the chair?

An elderly person needing a wheelchair is, almost by definition, not someone who can contribute economically. Let's assume grandma has saved, but her savings are gone. What now?

The exception never proves the rule. The fact that not every future contingency can be planned for by everyone has become the excuse for no one to save for any future contingency.

Just like this discussion, we have health care provisions to deal with the exceptions, the extremes, the high risk categories. The "reform" is the attempt to make the exception the rule but the problem is we are going broke paying for the exceptions.

Grandma be it by herself, by her family, by her local relief organization or church could easily afford a $100-200 wheel chair.

Quote:
The public assistance received by the elderly and poor right now are already "health transfers". We have that now and we have since before both of us were even born.

It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean I want it for my children or for myself.

Quote:
There is no solving the problem of being old and being poor; both are states of being that have always been and always will be. The only question is how a society copes intelligently with those two high-risk states of being. Our current system does not work very well, as you would agree.

If it can't be solved then why devote hundreds of billions towards it? You look at older housing. You see what used to be called "Mother in law quarters" and the reason why was because after Dad passed Mom came to stay with the family. When Social Security was conceived it was a program that was supposed to help you in your last six months of life, literally to make sure you weren't working until you had both feet in the grave. The life expectancy when it was created WAS 65. Now people can choose to start at 62 (with a penalty) but often live to an average of 76 years old. If it were adjusted for the original intent, people would start receiving benefits at 75 or so.

I have no doubt it wouldn't be bankrupting the country if started at that age.

Our current system works very well for those receiving the benefits. The elderly poverty rate is 10%, well below the general population. Of all health resources spent in these programs, 50% is on extreme life extending procedures within the last six years of life.

If the government had the ability to ration for the elderly, then people would trust it to ration for the rest of us, but they don't have that ability. Grandma gets the $500 wheel chair until she complains about it. Then she get the $1500 custom fitted wheelchair to help and later, a $2500 wheelchair while waiting for two hip replacements. No one says no to her and this is why medicare projections are insane for the future.

Quote:
This already happens. However, it can be done in a more direct and cost-effective way.
We cannot wish away the old, the sick, and the poor.

It is already direct and it is not at all cost effective. The government is the direct insurer for the high risk groups and those groups are already paid for by us directly with a tax for that explicit purpose. Government already has the option as Obama noted, of choosing the blue or red pill and they choose both so instead of paying 50%, we spend 150%.

There is no bit of rationalizing that can fix the reasoning that throwing more people into an inefficient mechanism will somehow make it efficient. It will never work.

Quote:
The HSA is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Those who can use the HSA are already healthy and have money to save and are, therefore, fairly well served by the current health insurance system that we have. It is not a solution for those with pre-existing conditions. It is not a solution for the elderly. It is not a solution for the poor.


Many of the uninsured are healthy people who simply forgo insurance.


There is a strong relationship between age and income and health insurance coverage, with younger and low-income Americans significantly more likely to be uninsured than others. In fact, the two groups with the highest uninsured rates, other than Hispanics, are Americans who make less than $36,000 per year and those aged 18-29, with 28.6% and 27.6% uninsured, respectively.

Looking at that link we see the top three variables are hispanics, young and earning under $36k.

I look at that and don't see issues that affect the 85% who have health care nor a reason to alter conditions and terms for that 85%.

I see perhaps an opening for public service announcement targeted at raising awareness within certain communities. As an example I read an article recently about how food banks were conducting education campaigns in similar communities. It turns out that the folks they were serving had come from backgrounds where canned vegetables were not common and so they would not be claimed. A little education and some cooking classes altered outcomes significantly. Changing a few eligibility perimeters and educating Hispanics and young people about the benefits of getting health care would appear to solve a large percentage of the problems here.

Quote:
Home and auto insurance are not life requirements.

Shelter is a life requirement and insurance on that shelter whether paid for by the owner when you rent or by you as an owner is a requirement. Transportation in this modern age is a requirement for survival as well. The point is I can get hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of targeted insurance for very cheap but if they were expected to be like our current health insurance which are PLANS more than insurance, they would be very expensive.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #100 of 2360
Quote:
The fact that not every future contingency can be planned for by everyone has become the excuse for no one to save for any future contingency.

No, it hasn't.

Quote:
Just like this discussion, we have health care provisions to deal with the exceptions, the extremes, the high risk categories.

No, we don't. if we did then we wouldn't have tens of millions uninsured and thousands going bankrupt because of illnesses.

Quote:
Grandma be it by herself, by her family, by her local relief organization or church could easily afford a $100-200 wheel chair.

How, then, do you explain the simple fact that millions and millions of people all over the world and all throughout time die because they do not receive necessary help?

Quote:
It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean I want it for my children or for myself.

Of course it's right. It's the right thing to do to help people who need help.

Quote:
If it can't be solved then why devote hundreds of billions towards it?

Because if we didn't, tens of thousands of people would die every year of causes we could very easily prevent.

Quote:
Now people can choose to start at 62 (with a penalty) but often live to an average of 76 years old. If it were adjusted for the original intent, people would start receiving benefits at 75 or so.

This is an argument for Social Security reform, not the removal of all social safety nets.

Quote:
If the government had the ability to ration for the elderly, then people would trust it to ration for the rest of us, but they don't have that ability.

Didn't you just say that the elderly have a lower poverty rate than the general population? Sounds like the government is doing a pretty good job for them.

Quote:
There is no bit of rationalizing that can fix the reasoning that throwing more people into an inefficient mechanism will somehow make it efficient. It will never work.

The mechanism is only inefficient because the people in the system (the elderly and the poor) are not the ones paying for it. Once you have everyone in the same system you have those paying for it paying more careful attention to how the funds are used.

Beyond that, if everyone is given a basic level of insurance by a public system that then frees the private insurance world to be even more selective in their clientele than they are now.

Quote:
Shelter is a life requirement and insurance on that shelter whether paid for by the owner when you rent or by you as an owner is a requirement.

No, it's not. I've never had apartment insurance in my life and I'm not moving into my first home until the end of the month.

Quote:
The point is I can get hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of targeted insurance for very cheap but if they were expected to be like our current health insurance which are PLANS more than insurance, they would be very expensive.

They would be more expensive if everyone needed them, yes. Apples and oranges.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #101 of 2360
Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal government the authority to administer healthcare?

If it doesn't, then the 10th Amendment applies.

Governor Perry of Texas has already raised the possibility of invoking states' rights under the 10th amendment and rejecting nationalized health care.

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare

Quote:
"I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #102 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal government the authority to administer healthcare?

If it doesn't, then the 10th Amendment applies.

Governor Perry of Texas has already raised the possibility of invoking states' rights under the 10th amendment and rejecting nationalized health care.

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare

Jazzguru dude, have you ever had major surgery? and I don't mean Cmaj.
post #103 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

No, it hasn't.

Strident declarations aside, the statistics on national savings rate show different.

Quote:
No, we don't. if we did then we wouldn't have tens of millions uninsured and thousands going bankrupt because of illnesses.

We have tens of million insured for a multitude of reasons including the choice of being willing to pocket the money and accept the risk. I provided the statistics. Denials don't refute that. Thousands go bankrupt for a multitude of reasons. They don't just discharge medical bills when they file for it. They discharge almost all debts.

Quote:
How, then, do you explain the simple fact that millions and millions of people all over the world and all throughout time die because they do not receive necessary help?

Amazing isn't it? It is almost like death is the default state for us all eventually or something like that. It is Utopian thought to believe otherwise. There was no garden where we were all living for 900 years until bad Republicans or Bush came along.

Quote:
Of course it's right. It's the right thing to do to help people who need help.

There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.

Those are statements that are right.

Quote:
This is an argument for Social Security reform, not the removal of all social safety nets.

It isn't a safety net when "quality of life" issues cause it to pay for and supply things that are about much more than falling and needing a net.

Quote:
Didn't you just say that the elderly have a lower poverty rate than the general population? Sounds like the government is doing a pretty good job for them.

It has done a good job but not within a cost containment model. Rather they have run up huge debts and the projections for the continuation of those debts in the future show that the current model is not sustainable. It is ludicrous to suggest that an unsustainable model be moved from a segment of the population to a larger percentage. It is ludicrous to suggest doing this will make the unsustainable into the sustainable.

Quote:
The mechanism is only inefficient because the people in the system (the elderly and the poor) are not the ones paying for it. Once you have everyone in the same system you have those paying for it paying more careful attention to how the funds are used.

Obama has not suggested a solution where a person pays for their own insurance now. If that were the case the only reform we would need would be an insurance mandate. Obama has declared that savings from electronic records, fraud removal and another tax on the rich will pay for this.

By that reasoning many, many more people will be drawing services they do not pay for and the costs, like the government programs, will explode well beyond their initial projections which are already 1.6 trillion dollars.

Quote:
Beyond that, if everyone is given a basic level of insurance by a public system that then frees the private insurance world to be even more selective in their clientele than they are now.

Selective = everyone eats the government burger and those who want steak better be rich. This is a prime example of why people prefer what they have now. This video hits on the point you suggest precisely and shows why people resist that choice.

Quote:
No, it's not. I've never had apartment insurance in my life and I'm not moving into my first home until the end of the month.

My own rental agreements demand rental insurance because the insurance of the owner covers up to the paint on the walls. In the event of fire, flood, theft, etc. the building insurance replaces nothing for the tenant. Perhaps you've never bought it but it just means that you've done what most young(er) people do and that is use youth and lack of income as an excuse to take on the risk since you aren't risking much.

Congrats on the home. It's a lot harder to ponder forgoing insurance when all the crap you had in your dorm room won't be worth what you probably spend to furnish one room in that house. Hope you and the wife have fun filling it with stuff and kids too (if that's the desire.)

Quote:
They would be more expensive if everyone needed them, yes. Apples and oranges.

I think what you fail to see here is that they are a requirement. The question is only one of who pays it. I can assure you that if you rented an apartment, the building was insured and part of your rent went to pay that insurance. However that insurance covers catastrophic concerns and not painting the trim. Your public transportation carries insurance. As you get higher up the ladder it is increasingly often about being able to risk less because the returns are lower and the costs are higher.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #104 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Jazzguru dude, have you ever had major surgery? and I don't mean Cmaj.

How is my personal medical history relevant to this discussion?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #105 of 2360
Quote:
Strident declarations aside, the statistics on national savings rate show different.

People fail to save because they want to spend all they have to get all the various shiny baubles they see advertized, not because they have some longterm notion of social security taking care of their retirement. People simply do not think of their retirement.

I am sure the existence of a safety net does remove the imperative to save in some people, or at least reduce it.

Quote:
We have tens of million insured for a multitude of reasons including the choice of being willing to pocket the money and accept the risk. I provided the statistics. Denials don't refute that. Thousands go bankrupt for a multitude of reasons. They don't just discharge medical bills when they file for it. They discharge almost all debts.

What statistics do you refer to?

Quote:
Amazing isn't it? It is almost like death is the default state for us all eventually or something like that. It is Utopian thought to believe otherwise.

Utopian? No. the only utopian talk I see here is this notion that the poor and elderly will be taken care of by church groups.

Quote:
It isn't a safety net when "quality of life" issues cause it to pay for and supply things that are about much more than falling and needing a net.

Again, a call for reform, not removal.

Quote:
It has done a good job but not within a cost containment model. Rather they have run up huge debts and the projections for the continuation of those debts in the future show that the current model is not sustainable.

Unsustainable because those who are paying for it are not invested in it.

Quote:
Obama has not suggested a solution where a person pays for their own insurance now.

If you mean "pays the entire cost of his own insurance", then yes. Then again, no one seems to be suggesting that.

If you mean "pays nothing towards the cost of his insurance, then no.

Quote:
I think what you fail to see here is that they are a requirement.

They are not. They are not requirements. I do not know how that can be any more explicit. A person can live a long and healthy and happy life having never purchased home or auto insurance. There are people out there who make more than you and I combined who own neither a house nor a car.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #106 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

How is my personal medical history relevant to this discussion?

If you have not had any personal experiences with the US healthcare system than, WTF are you talking about?
post #107 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

If you have not had any personal experiences with the US healthcare system than, WTF are you talking about?

Ah, the old "if you haven't had a personal experience with _________ you shouldn't be able to talk about it" card.

I don't believe I told you what my personal experience with healthcare in the US is, nor do I believe it is relevant to this discussion.

Nice try.

Next?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #108 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

If you have not had any personal experiences with the US healthcare system than, WTF are you talking about?

Personal experience is only anecdotal evidence and therefor not necessarily true or reliable, by definition.
Quote:
Anecdotal : (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
post #109 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

How is my personal medical history relevant to this discussion?



Everyone's is!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #110 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

People fail to save because they want to spend all they have to get all the various shiny baubles they see advertized, not because they have some longterm notion of social security taking care of their retirement. People simply do not think of their retirement.

Well in life there are consequences for non-thinking.

Quote:
I am sure the existence of a safety net does remove the imperative to save in some people, or at least reduce it.

What statistics do you refer to?

Utopian? No. the only utopian talk I see here is this notion that the poor and elderly will be taken care of by church groups.

Again, a call for reform, not removal.

Unsustainable because those who are paying for it are not invested in it.

If you mean "pays the entire cost of his own insurance", then yes. Then again, no one seems to be suggesting that.

If you mean "pays nothing towards the cost of his insurance, then no.

They are not. They are not requirements. I do not know how that can be any more explicit. A person can live a long and healthy and happy life having never purchased home or auto insurance. There are people out there who make more than you and I combined who own neither a house nor a car.

The rest isn't worth dealing with. Simple one sentence restatements with nothing added aren't worth the time. You asked, you received and now I'm done since nothing is being added from the other side of the equation.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #111 of 2360
Thread Starter 
NYTimes.com

Dear Paul,

We are supposed to be creating a health care crisis to win approval of a bill. You fucked up big time. Look at this horrible truth you told in the NY Times.

On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if theyre currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care.

Surely you being an award winning economist know that this is adverse selection. We all know they make this choice because there isn't likely to be a real benefit for them in having health care. However please don't fuck it up. If they are greedy (young, healthy) bastards gaming the system, then we can't portray them as helpless, hopeless folks that we are protecting and desperately fighting the forces of evil to bring them health care. Remember dumbass, them not having health care is a CRISIS, not adverse selection. CRISIS! Get it through your head moron otherwise this bill won't pass because we can't claim good intentions in forcing people to buy insurance when they don't want it. They aren't suffering in that instance but rendering an economic choice reflecting priorities and using the information they know.

In the meantime shut up and read your talking points! Don't go off message again and for goodness sakes, don't tell the truth! Find some exceptions to the rule to scare people. Find that nice 23 year old with cancer and do a nice story devoid of numbers featuring them. We've got to scare people Paul, scare them so no one has to read the bill while acting quickly.

Get with the program Krugie!

Signed,
Rahm

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #112 of 2360
Quote:
Simple one sentence restatements with nothing added aren't worth the time.

Like, " Well in life there are consequences for non-thinking."?

Of course the things you cannot address are not worth addressing. After all, what good is discussion with differently-minded people when it eviscerates utopian nonsense?

I suppose "there are consequences for non-thinking" is about as close as I'll ever get to an honest answer to questions about what will happen in Galt's Gulch to the old and infirmed; they will die alone and in pain of curable disease because they just weren't useful enough.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #113 of 2360
CBO deals new blow to health plan

Quote:
For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

Save no money for 10+ years? In the middle of the worst economic times since the Great Depression?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #114 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Like, " Well in life there are consequences for non-thinking."?

Of course the things you cannot address are not worth addressing. After all, what good is discussion with differently-minded people when it eviscerates utopian nonsense?

I suppose "there are consequences for non-thinking" is about as close as I'll ever get to an honest answer to questions about what will happen in Galt's Gulch to the old and infirmed; they will die alone and in pain of curable disease because they just weren't useful enough.

I've addressed them but I'm not willing to readdress them when the information is ignored and dismissed and then the same point brought up again as if the post never happened.

Sorry if you feel the way you do, but you declare I'll beat an issue to death just because your name is next to it. Here I said simply I'm not going to spoon feed it to you again. There are plenty of other readers to write for on these forums.

Speaking of uninsured, the numbers continue to reflect the non-crisis.


Quote:
This number is clarified more when, as Cannon reveals from the CBO, “60 percent of the uninsured are under age 35, and 86 percent are in good-to-excellent health.”

All in all, the number of chronically uninsured who might need assistance is about 15% of that 20-30 million, or a couple million a year. Cannon and other free-market advocates wonder why America can’t help these individuals — already eligible for government programs — without endangering the health care coverage of about 119 million Americans.

They can fill the gap, not take over our lives.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 2360
The only addressing I saw of the issue of taking care of those without means was this:
"Grandma be it by herself, by her family, by her local relief organization or church could easily afford a $100-200 wheel chair."

So as I said, in Libertopia the protection for the poor/elderly/infirmed against a preventable death is the questionable and spotty charity of others.

So I'll ask and expect no straightforward answer: What of those who receive no charity from "local relief organizations or churches"?

You will dodge the question because its moral weight is untenable and it destroys the delusional fantasy that is strict libertarianism; sometimes people need help. Not only that, but those who espouse strict libertarian fantasies are not nearly as self-reliant and meritorious as they would love to believe themselves to be.

Let's quote the estimable Libertarian's Christ figure, Ayn Rand, from The Virtue of Selfishness:
Quote:
The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

...

It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save.

Or to take an example that can occur in everyday life: suppose one hears that the man next door is ill and penni¬less. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence; but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine, if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neighbors to help him out. But this does not mean that one must support him from then on, nor that one must spend one’s life look¬ing for starving men to help.

In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune hap-pening to others. He cannot live his life by the guidance of rules applicable only to conditions under which human sur-vival is impossible.

One thing Ms. Rand must be commended for is leaving it up to the individual to determine his own happiness, but at the same time taking great pains to tell the reader what he should do. An intellectual fraud with a cultish following would be nothing if not wildly contradictory within a few sentences.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #116 of 2360
Presently, social security is the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget.

I'm of the opinion that it should be reworked so that people that have millions in the bank stop receiving benefits before we go adding to the obligation.

Yes, you can have millions in the bank and the government will give you one of those motorized chairs you see hawked on TV.
Quote:
In the past 17 years, no other motorized wheel chair manufacturer has provided more Medicare reimbursed power wheelchairs directly to their customers than Hoveround. There are no “middle-men” involved. If you pre-qualify, Medicare may cover 80 percent of the cost of your new Hoveround wheelchair, and your supplemental insurance may cover the remaining 20 percent. In fact, 9 out of 10 Hoveround owners received their HOVEROUND power wheelchair at little or no cost.

http://www.hoveround.com/wp/medicare...r-wheelchairs/
Quote:
Who Qualifies for Medicare?

Individuals who:
• are at least 65 years old.
• are disabled and qualify for disability (may be under 65 years old).
• are a legal resident or US citizen.
• have worked in a Medicare-covered employment for at least 10 years. (If their spouse meets these criteria, they will be covered even if they themselves do not meet these criteria.)

Grandma's got no problem getting a wheelchair.
post #117 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

An intellectual fraud with a cultish following would be nothing if not wildly contradictory within a few sentences.

An apt description of Obama, indeed.

The government was never meant to be in the "charity" or "welfare" business.

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #118 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

The only addressing I saw of the issue of taking care of those without means was this:
"Grandma be it by herself, by her family, by her local relief organization or church could easily afford a $100-200 wheel chair."

So as I said, in Libertopia the protection for the poor/elderly/infirmed against a preventable death is the questionable and spotty charity of others.

So I'll ask and expect no straightforward answer: What of those who receive no charity from "local relief organizations or churches"?

Exactly who are those who receive no help and why would they not receive it?

Quote:
You will dodge the question because its moral weight is untenable and it destroys the delusional fantasy that is strict libertarianism; sometimes people need help. Not only that, but those who espouse strict libertarian fantasies are not nearly as self-reliant and meritorious as they would love to believe themselves to be.

Untenable? You claim a person for whom not a single family member, friend or relief organization would lift a finger to help. Who is this hypothetical person?

What is untenable as always, is using the exception to prove the rule. The rule is people get help from those close to them and from organizations. Making up a person no one would help but I guess whom deserves help is nothing more than theft looking for a rationalization.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #119 of 2360
I will ask the question again:
What of those who receive no charity from "local relief organizations or churches"?

Quote:
Exactly who are those who receive no help and why would they not receive it?

babies
the old
the poor

And on and on and on...

Quote:
Untenable? You claim a person for whom not a single family member, friend or relief organization would lift a finger to help. Who is this hypothetical person?

Not everyone has family/friends.
Not everyone has family/friends that can help.
Not everyone has family/friends that wants to help.
Not everyone has family/friends that even knows help is needed.

The very nature of a safety net is to catch those who are not caught by the normal social mechanisms.

Quote:
Making up a person no one would help but I guess whom deserves help is nothing more than theft looking for a rationalization.

Are you really arguing that these people do not exist?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #120 of 2360
Reading is Fundamental

Quote:
Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) is all over the news today thanks to this gem of a quote:

Quote:
I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Congressman Conyers, I would ask you: "what good is VOTING on a bill you haven't read"?

Here is some sound wisdom from one of our founding fathers:

Quote:
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."
-- James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality