SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[RandFan]

I was referencing both of you. His statement the Gubmint screws up everything it touches, and your counter about Somalia. i find both equally wrong.

It was hyperbole in response to absurdity.

I don't accept your claims that the Government must intervene on health care. i say that eventually the health care community will have to change or go bust. I think they will change. Now, I think that Tort reform would help a lot of this too as Doctors shouldn't have to carry 6 figure malpractice premiums. IDK how much this would lower overall costs, but it couldn't hurt.

But you have no idea how this will work? Just ignore it and maybe the problem will go away? Really?

I don't have all the answers to this. it's a major issue. Will it take care of it's self before it collapses of it's own weight? I have no idea. Will UHC solve all the problems? I doubt it, as it just creates new ones. Will we ever get this all figured out? I don't think so, not while I'm alive. (and I'm hoping for 40 more years)

No one claims UHC will solve all of the problems. I only claim it is working in most if not all other industrialized nations for less than we spend. The idea that it can't work here without these huge sky is falling claims is without foundation.

You still haven't presented a plan on how to pay for it.

You haven't demonstrate that I need to come up with a plan to pay for it. And claiming that "it will just fix itself" if we just leave it is alone is negligently naive. Doing nothing and hoping for a miracle is like planning for retirement by purchasing lottery tickets. I think we can do better than that.

Facts: We already spend more money per capita than all other nations that have UHC. If they can do it for less then so can we. Now you are making claims about how much it will cost to implement. I'd like to see your evidence.

 

[BravesFan]

My numbers were based on the federal budget site. I took how much they spend for medicare and medicaid for 50 million people. Then subtracted the top 10% of society as not participating due to using private Clinics out of pocket, then multiplied by 6. (then since it was like $4 trillion I subtracted a trillion....) still leaves a doubling of our Nat'l budget.

That is a heck of a lot of dollars.

 

[SezMe]

My numbers were based on the federal budget site. I took how much they spend for medicare and medicaid for 50 million people. Then subtracted the top 10% of society as not participating due to using private Clinics out of pocket, then multiplied by 6. (then since it was like $4 trillion I subtracted a trillion....) still leaves a doubling of our Nat'l budget.

That is a heck of a lot of dollars.

I'd suggest you look at your nic for an explanation. You nowhere account for cost savings.

Our current private insurance system runs on about 30% overhead. Medicare runs at about 3% (which, by the way, makes a shambles of balrog666's claim upthread). Take 25% out of the cost of medical services and there is a heck of a lot of dollars.

 

[BravesFan]

I deducted 30% from the initial $4.8 trillion btw, and is it really necessary to make a personal remark? i don't recall making one to you.


Besides, do you think the startup of such a system would drop costs that much? I concede that eventually the system will stabilize at probably $2 trillion a year or so give or take. But I can't see how we can expect to jump right out of the gate and be so efficient, especially when one considers the aging Baby Boomers.

 

[BravesFan]

I am just concerned that without eliminating much of our present budgetary requirements we could be opening the floodgates to serious problems with UHC. Our federal budgets run at too much of a deficit as it is. I would just like to see a well thought out plan, that does it's best to eliminate as much spending as possible before we try and attack such an expensive and enormous problem.

 

[angrysoba]

Would the Japanese trade their healthcare system for that of the USA? Why?

No, they wouldn't. I think they are horrified at the thought of it.

 

[SezMe]

Besides, do you think the startup of such a system would drop costs that much? I concede that eventually the system will stabilize at probably $2 trillion a year or so give or take. But I can't see how we can expect to jump right out of the gate and be so efficient, especially when one considers the aging Baby Boomers.

I don't have the knowledge or data to run the numbers. Without prejudice, I don't think you do either. It's a very complicated analysis so I just don't put any stock in the type of analysis you've done.

The evidence I find persuasive is that every other country that has some form of UHC provides their population with much better health care for less than half the money we spend.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I would just like to see a well thought out plan, that does it's best to eliminate as much spending as possible before we try and attack such an expensive and enormous problem.

How about a well thought out plan that does it's best to increase taxes and revenue as much as possible before we try and attack such an expensive and enormous problem?

The reason we are in so much debt is the Norquist/Republican scheme of "borrow and spend". And military spending is way out of control.

But if we switch to UHC, it’s a zero sum game. Health costs are currently covered by premiums paid to private health insurers.

People pay insurance companies, and insurance companies pay hospitals.

With UHC:

People pay the government, and the government pays hospitals.

People don’t pay more. Hospitals don’t get more. Yes, government spends more, but it is equal to what insurance companies spend.

Same difference. Except the government doesn’t pocket a percentage for the profit margin.

During initial discussions of health care reform from the 2008 election race, one of the most enlightening things I heard was that a public option would ruin private health insurance companies because everybody would choose the public option. Well…yes!

 

[shuize]

Would the Japanese trade their healthcare system for that of the USA? Why?

I doubt it. But I'm not sure how long the Japanese system can last in its current form either. Demographically, Japan is screwed.

As I've posted in other threads, I've had mixed results with health care here. For minor stuff, it's great. But the one time I had something which I thought was serious, the doctor basically shrugged his shoulders and sent me home. Maybe it was just bad luck with that doctor, I don't know. Still, I've heard enough stories about difficult cases getting turned away from hospitals here (in which people ended up dying) that I have to wonder.

In terms of cost, I ran the numbers a while back, and I think it was roughly the same as my last (private insurance) policy in the States. If you don't pay, my understanding is you either pay out of pocket or don't get treatment. I don't think that applies to emergency cases but, as I mentioned, there are frequent stories of emergency cases being refused. There is also co-pay here, but off the top of my head I don't remember if it's 20% or 30%. Whichever it is, I'm sure it's on its way up.

 

[shuize]

Would the Japanese trade their healthcare system for that of the USA? Why?

Since I posted, I spoke to a friend here who confirmed the co-pay was 30% (I still think it may be less for the elderly). She also confirmed something else I'd heard, that lots of people buy private catastrophic health insurance to cover the possibility of getting stuck with 30% of a major illness. Then, to my surprise, she said she thought if Japanese people were going to get stuck paying high taxes (her words) for national health insurance only to end up having to cover 30% of a serious illness, they might be better off using their tax money to just buy private insurance instead of having to pay twice.

So, to answer your question, I have met at least one Japanese person who might be willing to trade.

 

[AlBell]

What is it with the straw men?

We can like you hope that diet and exercise are not covered by ICC. Maybe the General Welfare clause?

ps. Not strawmen.

 

[AlBell]

I don't have the knowledge or data to run the numbers. Without prejudice, I don't think you do either. It's a very complicated analysis so I just don't put any stock in the type of analysis you've done.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/helenw..._obamacare_contains_a_17_trillion_funding_gap

The evidence I find persuasive is that every other country that has some form of UHC provides their population with much better health care for less than half the money we spend.

The scary to me thing here is that Obama thinks raising taxrates for high income taxpayers will increase revenues, while historically revenues rise when rates are cut or stay about the same as % of GDP. Per his historical statements, punish the wealthy.... "fairness". LOL.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

See Hausers Law chart a few pages down in the link.

Perhaps with lower rates folks just pay the tax rather than spending big bucks to find tax shelters the IRS hasn't disallowed.

 

[RandFan]

My numbers were based on the federal budget site. I took how much they spend for medicare and medicaid for 50 million people. Then subtracted the top 10% of society as not participating due to using private Clinics out of pocket, then multiplied by 6. (then since it was like $4 trillion I subtracted a trillion....) still leaves a doubling of our Nat'l budget.

You have a glaring omission there. Money is already being spent for health care that you are not accounting for. With UHC the money sent to insurance companies can now be collected through taxation.

That is a heck of a lot of dollars.

Yes it is. It is money being spent right now.

I deducted 30% from the initial $4.8 trillion btw, and is it really necessary to make a personal remark? i don't recall making one to you.

You didn't quote me so I don't know what the personal remark was. I'll apologize without knowing. I'm sorry.

Besides, do you think the startup of such a system would drop costs that much? I concede that eventually the system will stabilize at probably $2 trillion a year or so give or take. But I can't see how we can expect to jump right out of the gate and be so efficient, especially when one considers the aging Baby Boomers.

Money paid to insurance companies will simply be redirected to taxes. I don't see why we need to be efficient right out of the gate. And BTW, it's not as if the govt doesn't already do this (medicare) so there will not a lot of start up costs for planning and implementation. It just has to scale.

I am just concerned that without eliminating much of our present budgetary requirements we could be opening the floodgates to serious problems with UHC. Our federal budgets run at too much of a deficit as it is. I would just like to see a well thought out plan, that does it's best to eliminate as much spending as possible before we try and attack such an expensive and enormous problem.

Floodgates of problems have already been started. The idea that we can just ignore it and it will go away is without basis.

 

[RandFan]

I don't want the government telling us what to eat and how much to exercise

What is it with the straw men?

We can like you hope that diet and exercise are not covered by ICC. Maybe the General Welfare clause?

No one is arguing that the government should tell us what to eat and how much to exercise. That's an invention of yours. In other words, it's a straw man.

 

[RandFan]

See Hausers Law chart a few pages down in the link.

Perhaps with lower rates folks just pay the tax rather than spending big bucks to find tax shelters the IRS hasn't disallowed.

No one is arguing that we should soak the rich. Most of us argue that we should adopt something akin to the plan found in the report that the GOP commissioned and then rejected.

Sorry, GOP: Tax revenue needs to go up

Your own source doesn't claim that taxes cannot be raised only that there are limits to how much taxes can be raised.

 

[BravesFan]

That entire post wasn't directed to you Rand , it was to someone else, and we settled the issue via PM !

 

[shuize]

No one is arguing that the government should tell us what to eat and how much to exercise. That's an invention of yours. In other words, it's a straw man.

Well, as I noted above, I'm less concerned about the government forcing me to buy boccoli and join a health club than I am about eventually having to pay higher taxes or being forced into an insurance plan I don't want in order to subsidize a nation full of people who can't walk two blocks to save their lives.

Having said that, if we accept the government's proposed interpretation of the Commerce Clause, I'm not sure why Congress couldn't mandate membership in a health club or regular purchases of broccoli.

 

[RandFan]

Well, as I noted above, I'm less concerned about the government forcing me to buy boccoli and join a health club than I am about eventually having to pay higher taxes or being forced into an insurance plan I don't want in order to subsidize a nation full of people who can't walk two blocks to save their lives.

Having said that, if we accept the government's interpretation of the Commerce Clause, I'm not sure why Congress couldn't mandate membership in a health club or regular purchases of broccoli.

Okay, I will concede to you the premise. I'll withdraw my claim that you were engaging in straw man arguments.

 

[mhaze]

....if we accept the government's proposed interpretation of the Commerce Clause, I'm not sure why Congress couldn't mandate membership in a health club or regular purchases of broccoli.

There's this little voice whispering to me that if the AHC law and it's interpretation of the Commerce Clause is allowed to stand, then EVERY lobbyist in District of Criminals is going to be pushing previously unheard of amounts of money to get his product or services shoved down our throats thru an earmark attached to some bill in a 2000 page heap.

Whether it's the Bamster or Romney.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

There's this little voice whispering to me that if the AHC law and it's interpretation of the Commerce Clause is allowed to stand, then EVERY lobbyist in District of Criminals is going to be pushing previously unheard of amounts of money to get his product or services shoved down our throats thru an earmark attached to some bill in a 2000 page heap.

Whether it's the Bamster or Romney.

Yeah, that would just be too tempting to do for just about anyone selling a product or service. I mean from a business perspective who wouldn't want a captive consumer base?

Examples:

A car dealership is now the only place who can work on your car (goodbye Jiffylube and shadetree mechanics, and fixing it yourself is really out of the question). Reason: Poorly maintained cars can kill people not only in the car but even innocent pedestrians, and who knows the car better than the people who built and sold it. (Sponsored by Chevy)

Everyone must have XX numbers of hours per week of approved types of exercise (verified by certified health club inspectors). Reason: Health care costs are spiraling out of control because people aren't taking good enough care of themselves. (Sponsored by fitness America)

Everyone must purchase at least 1 dozen eggs per week per person in their family. Reason: A good breakfast has been shown to have a positive effect and ensuring that the ingredient are always available in every home will help them in deciding to eat eggs for breakfast in the morning. (Sponsored by the National Egg Producers Association).

Yes I know that these are all strawmen but I am using them as an example of how a business might want to force people to buy their products under the umbrella of the greater public good.