|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Yes, I pay taxes that help to fund those services. I expect that everyone that owns a home pays their property taxes (at least generally speaking). Is locally provided fire insurance in the same league as nationally subsidized healthcare? I see what you're trying to get at but I don't think it's a very good comparison. |
It's a logical comparison, even if the measurements of one is a bit bigger than the other.
| quote: | | So does that mean that the default conclusion is that it MUST be provided by the government on somebody else's dime? |
What's the alternative, the current shit privatized, monopoly system that we have today? You have a better option, let's hear it. Personally the option that I hear regarding the public OPTION isn't too scary to me.
Besides, under the current system of our privatized monopoly, we are essentially ALL paying for it. Whenever an uninsured goes to the ER for back pain instead of their primary care physician or Urgent Care location, we all essentially have to foot the bill through rising costs of insurance via co-pays, premiums, and deductibles. I fail to see how adding an option covered by the government is going to somehow make us pay more, especially in lieu of this fact that our costs are rising with the current system due in large part to the uninsured already.
| quote: | | I don't mean to sound callous, but I hate the argument that if something is broken, it is the responsibility of government to fix it (with massive deficit spending at the expense of those who are already paying for it). |
Yes, because Conservatives were really up in arms over prior Republican Presidents like the douchebag we just had who took massive deficit spending to new heights (I know, some like you were upset, but you have to admit many others in the GOP turned a blind eye). It's funny how every Republican president comes along for the past 30 years, their supporters tout "small government at last!”, only to ignore the realities that their heroes put us into the red far worse than any of their Democratic counterparts, but I digress.
And again not to be in lock-step with the President or anything, but he re-emphasized the point today in his town hall that the cost of his plan will be covered in large part to rolling back the tax cuts on those earning $250,000 and higher. IOW, the vast majority of Americans will not be given the burden of paying for this.
| quote: | | Surely there are more innovative solutions than what is being proposed in 1,000 page bills that nobody has time to read?? |
I really don’t think that excuse is gonna fly here, especially when we see clear, outright lies and distortions by idiot “deathers” in your party in reading things on page 424 or whatever page that line is on. If this bill was being voted on tomorrow and Congress was handed this stuff 2 days ago, which was the approximate timeline of events that occurred when Bush’s Patriot Act was dropped in their laps, then you’d have a reasonable argument. But there’s plenty of time to dissect, and obviously obfuscate (as we’ve already seen by leaders in the GOP) what’s in the bill.
| quote: | | Yes they do suck. Healthcare is expensive as fuck, and probably needlessly so. But I'd prefer to stick with the tactics that go after the cause of high premiums instead of band-aid fixes that only add up to more and more debt for future generations. Making something "more affordable" by subsidizing it (making it more expensive for the guy who now pays for his own insurance as well as yours) is not a solution. More government and higher taxes are not a long-term solution to any real problems, imo. |
The problem, Shakka, is that “sticking with the tactics” hasn’t done shit in the past, and given the giant oiled lobbyist insurance and Pharma machine that we’re up against today, the likelihood of little “tweaks” here and there in the current system simply won’t do shit now or ever.
And who says anything about making insurance more expensive for those who choose to pay for their own insurance if the public option even goes through? If, according to your party’s Capitalistic Bible, we go forth with another competitor in the mix (i.e. government), shouldn’t those other privatized companies ideally compete by LOWERING costs against their competitors? And if they don’t, they would simply be outcompeted and run out of business, right?
You know, that whole free market, laizzes faire stuff, right?
| quote: | | Who knows. Maybe it would be a good idea, maybe it wouldn't. I don't really see that as a relevant tangent at this point. |
Yes you do. My point is simple – we pay for the services of firefighters and police protecting us when we need protection, just as we would pay for services for a government run health care program when we need it. Actually it’s even better – we would simply CHOOSE to pay for those services of health insurance, something my firefighter analogy actually doesn’t have.
| quote: | | We must be reading different stories. Maybe the $6B surplus you're talking about comes from massive tax increases, not savings. |
Yeah, leave it to the WSJ to give you reliable, unbiased statistics. Funny how they left out the baseline of our current system to compare it with the CBO projections. One reader in the feedback section also put the cost into perspective as well:
| quote: | | The entire $1 trillion cost of the plan is only 4% of the estimated total healthcare spending over the 10 year period. That means you got the other 96% of costs to find cost savings, even if it is entirely not paid for. Or if the funding gap is, as the editorial says $188 bn, that is less than 1% of total healthcare spending over the next 10 years, which then gives you 99% of the costs to find savings as an offset. Seems very doable and manageale to me. |
The other issue I tend to wonder is did the WSJ take into consideration the projected savings of this system, or did they only figure in the total cost? If, so, seems strange to only consider one side of the equation, but I guess that gives a better slant to their point.
But some of the savings that can be included are the following:
| quote: | The provisions that would result in the largest savings include:
• Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for
most services in the fee-for-service sector (other than physicians’ services),
yielding budgetary savings of $196 billion over 10 years (excluding
interactions—namely, the effects of those changes on payments to Medicare
Advantage plans and collections of Part B premiums);
• Setting payment rates in the Medicare Advantage program based on per
capita Medicare spending in the fee-for-service sector, providing savings of
$156 billion (before interactions) over the 2010-2019 period; and
• Changes to the Medicare Part D program that would establish a new
prescription drug rebate program for some people who are eligible for both
Medicaid and Medicare, while expanding drug coverage to beneficiaries that
are currently subject to a gap in coverage (often referred to as the Part D
“doughnut hole”), saving $30 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
The provision that would result in the largest increase in Medicare spending would change payment rates for physicians’ services to replace the 21 percent reduction in payment rates scheduled for January 2010, under the existing “sustainable growth rate” formula, with an inflation-based update. In subsequent years, rates would reflect separate updates for “evaluation and management” services and for all other services. CBO estimates that those changes would cost $228 billion over the 2010-2019 period (before taking into account interactions). Including those interactions, the net cost of the changes in physicians’ payment rates would total $245 billion.
Page 4 on: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf |
I think it’s worth reading in its entirety.
| quote: | | But hey, I guess in 10 years, Obama will be out so it'll actually be the fault of the next administration when suddenly the deficit goes hyperbolic. |
Again I find it funny how the pot of Republicans calling the Democratic kettle black (no racist pun intended at all) when it comes to deficit spending, considering your Presidential record dating back since at least Reagan.
| quote: | | I have said in this thread that there are certain changes in the current system that I'd gladly support. However a single-payor system that does nothing to address the problems and only creates more federal expenses and higher taxes is definitely not one of them. |
Okay, great, I’ll be happy to consider this point WHEN WE ACTUALLY START TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE PAYOR SYSTEM. Because if memory serves, no single-payor system is in this bill, is it? If so, can you point it out?
| quote: | | Surely we can come up with more innovative solutions to tackle the real problems without resorting to trying to cram through 1,000 page bills that nobody has read in record time without fully vetting the potential consequences. |
Again I re-emphasize the timeline on this is considerable and worthy enough for even the slowest of readers in Congress to get through it before a vote. But given the obvious distortions done by the Deathers and other Limbaugh twits out there, it’s obvious they’ve read it and have done well to spin the shit out of it.
| quote: | | It's no wonder so many Americans are incensed and this platform is quickly losing steam. |
I’m sorry, Shakka, but the Deathers and the people at these town halls yelling and disrupting the meetings are nothing but stupid fucks, period. They are not interested whatsoever in rational discourse, nor do they care. They have been worked up by CORPORATE INSURANCE LOBBYISTS and Astroturf shitmongers and haven’t a feeble fucking neuron in their brains to stop and think for themselves before they paint fucking swastikas on Congressional buildings (http://www.11alive.com/news/local/s...?storyid=133691) and putting Hitler mustaches on Obama’s picture.
Most Americans still want a public option, despite these stupid fucks deliberately disrupting a rational conversation. But you’re welcome to believe anything you want.
I’m running out of time, and I think you bring up some salient points further down that I’d like to address later, but I did want to address one last comment of yours:
| quote: | | Firstly, I don't know that I fully agree with the constant assertation that the system is "broken" just because Obama says so. |
It’s not because he says so, it’s because the statistics clearly say so that others have posted here. It’s because we pay so damn much for health insurance that gives so little back, and can drop us at any time, especially in comparison to other countries. Again to restate some of the points:
We are rated 24th in life expectancy, yet we pay more than any other country for insurance. In comparison to Canada which pays an ave. of $2k/yr on health insurance, we pay an ave of $16,800/yr:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44667
http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/05/21...-medical-index/
14,000 folks lose their health insurance daily:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ance-every-day/
46 million uninsured:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php
18,000 folks die each year as a result of a lack of healthcare, about 50/day:
http://hc-dw.org/
2/3 of American personal bankruptcies are secondary to health care costs:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...edStories_ssi_5
Given these facts, Jesus if this isn’t a broken system to you, what the hell is? This is certainly one of the most inefficient (and outright corrupt) systems I’ve ever seen.
It’s also because of my own experience at our clinic where I have to modify my treatment plans with patients because they can’t fucking afford their co-pays and shitty insurance coverage, not to mention the shitty reimbursement rates we get back from bastards like United Healthcare and Cigna.
Yes, it’s broke, Shakka, or at least at it’s current rate it will be unsustainable to the majority of Americans.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
We should also opt out of public schools if we send our child to private school. Opt out of the military because I sure as hell don't benefit from having troops in Iraq. Opt out of the US Postal Service because I use UPS! Redistribution of wealth is a reality and to think otherwise is a myopic point of view. Affordable healthcare is this nation's primary concern and the right wingers all out attempt to stop healthcare reform at all costs will be the down fall of this country. Fucking Bush whackjobs.
