Last edited by Harmor (2009-07-16 19:46:54)
It's not mine.PureFodder wrote:
It's a big part of the CNN article's argumentFEOS wrote:
That's not the argument at all.PureFodder wrote:
So the argument is that lots of Americans are currently getting crap, cheap insurance that doesn't cover lots of very important things and actually providing them with decent health insurance is bad?
And destroy 1/6th of the US GDP? Sounds like a great plan. Let's go ahead and pull that much money (and associated jobs and tax revenue) out of our economy right now. Brilliant.PF wrote:
The problem is that it is still hanging on to the collosally wasteful and completely unsustainable private health sector. If they want it to work they would be well advised to ditch the private part.FEOS wrote:
And thus you see the problem with our government trying to do something like UHC. They can't even get something this small even close to workable...why the hell would anyone think they can do it on the scale of a UHC?PF wrote:
Remember that I agree that this is a bad idea, moving straight to a complete UHC system makes vastly more sense as those articles plainly point out. The Obama proposal neatly sidesteps most of the advantageous saving that a government run system can achieve.
Last time I did some math, debt is cumulative if it's not paid off. I never stated nor implied it would happen all in one year. That's an utterly ridiculous--and entirely unfounded--stretch on your part.PF wrote:
So far just within this thread you've wrongly argued that UHC would damage the GDP of the nation, implied that the costs of the Obama plan will all occur in one year (there's no other way that it could increase debt by 25%)FEOS wrote:
Based solely on previous behavior, mind you.PF wrote:
You accuse me of dismissing information out of hand (which I didn't) without caring about the veracity,
That must be why every single estimate shows that it will add to the national debt.PF wrote:
wrongly stated that it will increase national debt (it's being covered by taxes and reduction in other programs)
It is intended to cover the "46 million" who are currently "uninsured" (which is a false number, btw). The fact that it may be open to others is irrelevant...its stated intent is to provide coverage for that small minority.PF wrote:
claimed the program will only cover a small number of the currently uninsured when it is actually going to be an option for pretty well all Americans
No, I didn't. I said that after they had switched and dealt with the bullshit, they will want to switch back.PF wrote:
then claimed that few people will be interested
Bullshit. Medicare is still a minority of the overall healthcare market.PF wrote:
and given that when Medicare when up against private insurers and now almost dominates the market the complete reverse of this assumption is more likely.
No, I don't. I was using CBO numbers and CBO-documented historical trends.PF wrote:
You also claim to have a bettter knowledge of the future costs of the program than the CBO. That's a whole lot if information you've been dismissing just in this thread so far.
You dismiss a source because you disagree with them...big shock there. You may want to actually READ the article. And check the CV of the guy who wrote it.PF wrote:
Heritage foundation, an organisation that is openly bised agains government programs believes that this will have higher than expected costs? Big shock there.FEOS wrote:
It's not just me...that's the historic trend, pointed out by many. A pretty thorough breakdown of CBO scoring and the issues with it can be found here. Note the example of the Medicare Prescription Drug program.PF wrote:
yet you dismiss the CBO estimate out of hand claiming that the costs will be 4 times larger than this. You think that you know better than the CBO?
It depends on how you look at the number. If you look at it as evenly divided over the 10-year span, it seems reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Then you look beyond the 10-year window, with annual spending of the nature we historically see (take Medicare example)...and the total cost literally skyrockets beyond the 10-year point. It is certainly not a linear relationship.
The 10-year cost of the drug subsidy program, originally estimated at $634 billion, has been revised to about $395 million
The rise in the medicare drug costs stem from a combination of a wildy inefficient pharmecuticals industry and lobbyists that forced through a law preventing Medicare from bargining with drugs companies to drive down prices. Again the problem here is the private sector and it's influence.
That must be why the private sector has succeeded so well. Because it's so much worse than the public sector.PF wrote:
Again, go see how well Medicare did vs. Medicare plus or whatever the private system was called before it all but folded due to not being able to compete with the public sector.FEOS wrote:
It will present an OPTION. That certainly doesn't mean people will flock to it. Now, that may happen initially...until they realize how crappy it is and go back to their old insurance. And yes, I speak from experience, as I am required to use govt-provided health insurance for myself (HMO-style). It is a night and day difference between the level of "care" I receive and the level of care my family receives (using a PPO style insurance). My entire family used to be under the HMO/UHC-style govt insurance. They will never go back. I wouldn't if I had the option...but I don't.PF wrote:
You also seem to be failing to get a whole great big aspect of this program, it will cover a whole bunch of those who are currently insured as well. Lots of people who have insurance will swap to the government system, thusly the costs of this program are going to be offset by the reduction of money being wasted in the current private system. Hopefully it'll put a load of crappier insurance companies out of business.Not in this thread, but it was just a matter of time, since it always comes up when someone from somewhere else tries to tell us how badly we need a UHC.PF wrote:
I haven't seen anyone make that argument, so why feel the need to try and debunk it?
Last edited by FEOS (2009-07-18 16:22:06)
In most socialized systems, the private market still flourishes. For example, in France, the public programs take care of basic care, while more advanced procedures are usually done by private care.FEOS wrote:
And destroy 1/6th of the US GDP? Sounds like a great plan. Let's go ahead and pull that much money (and associated jobs and tax revenue) out of our economy right now. Brilliant.PF wrote:
The problem is that it is still hanging on to the collosally wasteful and completely unsustainable private health sector. If they want it to work they would be well advised to ditch the private part.
Even if we assume that a socialized system will add to the national debt, it will rise slower than the private debts incurred by hospitals who continually must deal with patients that don't pay up and the private debts of the patients themselves.FEOS wrote:
That must be why every single estimate shows that it will add to the national debt.PF wrote:
wrongly stated that it will increase national debt (it's being covered by taxes and reduction in other programs)
If employer plans are gradually replaced by socialized medicine, then the system will serve everyone, not just the previously uninsured.FEOS wrote:
It is intended to cover the "46 million" who are currently "uninsured" (which is a false number, btw). The fact that it may be open to others is irrelevant...its stated intent is to provide coverage for that small minority.PF wrote:
claimed the program will only cover a small number of the currently uninsured when it is actually going to be an option for pretty well all Americans
Can you prove that last statement? The reason why I ask is because there are many socialized systems throughout the world that aren't rising in costs as fast as our private system is. It seems odd that the American market would somehow operate in the reverse of much of the world (basically most of it) when it comes to costs.FEOS wrote:
You dismiss a source because you disagree with them...big shock there. You may want to actually READ the article. And check the CV of the guy who wrote it.PF wrote:
Heritage foundation, an organisation that is openly bised agains government programs believes that this will have higher than expected costs? Big shock there.
The 10-year cost of the drug subsidy program, originally estimated at $634 billion, has been revised to about $395 million
The rise in the medicare drug costs stem from a combination of a wildy inefficient pharmecuticals industry and lobbyists that forced through a law preventing Medicare from bargining with drugs companies to drive down prices. Again the problem here is the private sector and it's influence.
You find a SINGLE source to support your position...when there are many more that support the opposite WRT the medicare drug prescription program's costs. But that's OK. Unlike you, I won't dismiss your source simply because I disagree with it...I'll dismiss it because there are far, far more that say the opposite.
The present French system is better than ours in terms of accessibility and affordability. So is Norway's. So are many other European systems.FEOS wrote:
That must be why the private sector has succeeded so well. Because it's so much worse than the public sector.
Or not.
Oh, and you're talking about some kind of historical system. I'm talking about a government-run system TODAY. How it works (or actually doesn't) TODAY. And how frustrating the lack of choice/recourse when you get shit medical care sucks TODAY. And you want to saddle the entire population with that bullshit.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-07-19 13:24:22)
Usually, socialized systems implement a form of tort reform. Settlements don't tend to be as outrageous, but doctors are still held accountable.Harmor wrote:
Does this bill stop malpractice suits? I mean you can't sue the government, right? This bill doesn't make doctors/hospitals government employees does it? I have to ask because I haven't read the 1018 page bill.
Michelle is usually full of shit, but she's right this time.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
The funniest part is that Congress doesn't want to enroll under their own healthcare program:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/15/co … obamacare/
(Apparently they recently voted 12-11, so it didn't pass)
They should be willing to put their money where their mouths are.
How else do you expect to hold people accountable?Harmor wrote:
Well...looks like how the Democrats will get Obamacare paid for is by having the IRS involved:
Senate rejects amendment to strip out IRS reporting requirement in new health care law.
And now the law sticks. Good news for the IRS, bad news for us.
By not creating a government program in the first place so people can choose for themselves.Turquoise wrote:
How else do you expect to hold people accountable?Harmor wrote:
Well...looks like how the Democrats will get Obamacare paid for is by having the IRS involved:
Senate rejects amendment to strip out IRS reporting requirement in new health care law.
And now the law sticks. Good news for the IRS, bad news for us.
I'll bite.Varegg wrote:
So Harmor ...
That's an open-ended question because you have different levels of government that are responsible for different things; so lets break this down by the Federal Government, the State Government, and then the Local government.Varegg wrote:
1. I'd like you to explain what government should do and not do ...
Businesses and corporations have a role, buts it not to govern. They can, through open contracts and transparency, bid for jobs and aid our government (i.e. a Food service company contracts to run the cafeteria - this contract was open to bidding and the bids and any relations to public employees were visible to everyone - no impropriety).Varegg wrote:
what could be done better by corporations ...
Yes. And how I do that is not to have the government tell me how I should be generous to them or make them slaves to the state through welfare programs. What's sad is that Liberials aren't as generous with their own money as Conservatives. Liberials are generious with other peoples' money.Varegg wrote:
2. Do you care for the welfare of your ...
a) Family?
b) Friends?
c) Neighbour?
d) The ones living a block away?
e) People living on the other side of town?
f) People living in other towns/states?
g) People living in the US?
When a person expects a hand-out instead of being humbled when its offered - when they expect it its extortion when they are humbled its a gift.Varegg wrote:
3. Where do you draw the line about people you care about and people that can fuck off?
That's a good question. Its not about not caring for the well-being for people you don't know (obviously you will care more forpeople near you like your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, kids, etc...), its about giving a care at all for someone you don't know.Varegg wrote:
4. Is it easier to not care about people you don't know?
Yes. The only people I don't care for their well being are child molesters, rapists, murders, or basically anyone that hurts other human beings; for all I care their bodies will be eternally ripped apart and their flesh burned in Hell.Varegg wrote:
5. Hypothetical ... if you knew everybody in the US, would you care for their well being?
The debate should be where to draw the line not if one should have welfare or not ... make a system that works, make it so it pays more to participate but at the same time takes care of the few that falls outside ...Cybargs wrote:
I talked about welfare to a few people in Taiwan they all replied me with this "What I can get money from the government without paying? what the fuck is this shit im moving to America."
There should be welfare but not to the amount where it's better off sucking off the governments dick than to find a job. Welfare for working people is ok for my books. I'd say it's actually cheaper to spend money on welfare to make some people deter from crime.
I tried explaining that a good while ago that crime, welfare, economy, unemployment rates etc etc ... that it is all linked together but it didn't draw much attention ...jord wrote:
Serious, aggravated crime would rise quickly if welfare was removed completely. Not planned, victimless crimes but just straight mugging old women for £20 at knifepoint.
The simplest explanation is if people genuinely cannot find work and have no other means to make money, they may well resort to crime.Varegg wrote:
I tried explaining that a good while ago that crime, welfare, economy, unemployment rates etc etc ... that it is all linked together but it didn't draw much attention ...jord wrote:
Serious, aggravated crime would rise quickly if welfare was removed completely. Not planned, victimless crimes but just straight mugging old women for £20 at knifepoint.