Health care victory

God I love the deflections and non-answers. I wonder if people treated their wedding vows the same way where "I do" becomes some form of answering a question with a question.

And before any of you bastards get your panties in a bunch, I'm talking of none of you directly. Just an observation of today's news - I'm catching up with the last week of ****ery.

Anyway... the masses that are protesting about healthcare seem as if they would be happier with a 40+ year old system that lets more people that are US citizens fall through the cracks somehow.

I welcome an eloquent answer as to exactly why people are against healthcare reform. Happy with the system? Don't care if your parents die? Not thinking about your own death because you have enough money right now? Or something therein?

If it's solely around budget; protest the wars. I know there's gotta be a better way to spend 10 billion USD a month - almost 1 trillion since 2001. That would have been better used to educate our own folks, regulate the folks that ****ed up Wall Street and avoid TARP, et al - which, they're actually paying back in record time (Bush got lucky there).

So... why dislike it so much? Anybody got a truthful answer? I can handle the truth. I promise.

Few people are "against healthcare reform." The debate is over what specific types of reform would work best to reduce costs and increase access without reducing quality.

I can't speak for everyone. But, I think that the general objection to Obama's plan is that it will increase rather than reduce costs.

Speculation has led to 40 years of non-reform.

The objection isn't based on speculation but on the actual history of health care legislation and entitlements:

1965: Medicare instituted. Projected cost by 1990: $9 billion.
1990: Actual cost of Medicare by 1990: $67 billion.

1987: Medicaid hospital subsidy. Projected to cost $100 million/year by 1992.
1992: Actual cost of hospital subsidy: $100 billion.

1988: Medicare home-care benefit established. Projected cost for 1993: $4 billion.
1993: Actual cost of home-care benefit: $10 billion.

---

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to anyone who believes that the projections Obama has given will be even remotely close to the actual cost of this bill.

All that means is that the projections that the Republicans offered in their "offerings" in the name of "health care reform" were invariably off too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I can't speak for everyone. But, I think that the general objection to Obama's plan is that it will increase rather than reduce costs.

---

Right now that's unfounded speculation.
Some analysts predict it will increase costs, some predict it will decrease costs, and others, including the CBO, don't think it will have an impact on costs one way or the other.
The only thing that is certain at this point is how much healthcare cost have been rising every year and something had to be done before it was too late.
The Republicans had an unobstructed 8 years under Bush to reform healthcare if they had wanted to.
Obviously that wasn't/isn't their priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Right now that's unfounded speculation.
Some analysts predict it will increase costs, some predict it will decrease costs, and others, including the CBO, don't think it will have an impact on costs one way or the other.
The only thing that is certain at this point is how much healthcare cost have been rising every year and something had to be done before it was too late.
The Republicans had an unobstructed 8 years under Bush to reform healthcare if they had wanted to.
Obviously that wasn't/isn't their priority.

---

Think about that.

It's certain that healthcare costs have been rising every year and something had to be done.

Yet, by your explanation, whether or not costs will go up or down is anyones guess.

Yes. Good thing that the Democrats got on the ball and passed something that according to you is a coin-flip between making it better or worse.

Even worse, a major premise for health care reform was that the current Medicare system is on track to go bankrupt.

Obama's bill doesn't even pretend to address that problem. Instead, the argument is that it doesn't add as much to costs as their opponents claim. So, we're still on track to bankrupt health care in this country, even accepting Obama's pie-in-the-sky numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

All that means is that the projections that the Republicans offered in their "offerings" were invariably off too.

---

You mean their role in Medicare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Yes. Good thing that the Democrats got on the ball and passed something that according to you is a coin-flip between making it better or worse.

---

When you put it that way I have to agree with you.
Better a 50% chance of making it better by doing something, than a 100% chance of it getting worse by doing nothing.

America... quickly becoming the country where the cost of living is going up and the chances of living are going down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

America... quickly becoming the country where the cost of living is going up and the chances of living are going down.

---

Every bubbles pop one day or another(8-10 years). The further it is from the ground the less it will splash on the floor. The only problem is to know who's the current generator and to assume it.

The only bubble I want to burst is the fact that people are overlooking that many people fall through the cracks. The one's protesting all have insurance and coverage. It's honestly become an argument of privilege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

When you put it that way I have to agree with you.
Better a 50% chance of making it better by doing something, than a 100% chance of it getting worse by doing nothing.

---

The problem is that the "getting better" side of the coin doesn't improve things enough to avoid the dangerous path we are on.

So, we flip a coin. Heads, we are still on track to bankrupt health care soon. Tails, we bankrupt health care sooner than we had originally thought. Either way, the problem hasn't been addressed by this legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

The only bubble I want to burst is the fact that people are overlooking that many people fall through the cracks. The one's protesting all have insurance and coverage. It's honestly become an argument of privilege.

---

Many that are protesting are not over-looking the issue of access. Example protest arguments: Truly lowering costs would, by nature of being more affordable, increase access to many who can't currently afford health care. Many who do not have health care can afford it but choose not to buy it. Less expensive alternatives address access (such as McCains voucher system).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McCain Voucher Plan

1. Will result in coverage gaps for many individuals.
2. Insurers are prone to “cherry-pick” the healthiest of patients as in the current system
3. The most-costly individuals to cover (those with chronic or pre-existing conditions) will either 1) remain uninsured or 2) will need to be subsidized with increased government spending
4. Under a private market insurance system, anyone with a pre-existing condition will find it difficult to switch carriers if insured and find a carrier if uninsured. McCain’s proposal is to establish a non-profit corporation with help from the states to cover these individuals
5. Costs will be higher for the elderly, individuals with pre-existing conditions or higher risk profiles (this is the natural result of a market-based system)
6. Individual tax benefit ($5k for families/$2,500 for individuals) by itself is will not cover annual health insurance premiums. Out-of-pocket costs will be on top of this, and similarly will be an additional expense borne by consumers.
7. For individuals and families at the lower income spectrum, the after-tax impact of the tax benefit will be far less than the max benefit

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obama Health Plan

1. Obama’s plan marks more of a fundamental change in the overall health system, and thus will be far more difficult to enact – even with a democratic House and Senate
2. Plan will require immeasurable increases government spending at a time when the federal government is facing record
3. Plan is predicated on significant costs savings in the overall health system which are outside the control of government
4. Changes in regulatory changes to private market insurance are more substantial than McCain’s, and thus will be more difficult to push through legislative bodies
5. Obama will face criticism from Clinton supporters that his health plan does not go far enough to provide coverage to all uninsured Americans

---

McCain's voucher plan would have taxed employee health benefits. $2500 doesn't go far unless you're single these days.

Meh. It still doesn't resolve the original problem. No protest about healthcare solves the fact that 1 Trillion has been wasted in a set of wars that will never be repaid.

A number of those points are wrong or misleading. For example, McCain's plan included a system to address the additional costs of pre-existing conditions.

It would have worked better to resolve the problem by addressing one of the main errors that broke the system in the first place: tying payment of health insurance to employers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flashlackey

a number of those points are wrong or misleading. For example, mccain's plan included a system to address the additional costs of pre-existing conditions.

It would have worked better to resolve the problem by addressing one of the main errors that broke the system in the first place: Tying payment of health insurance to employers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flashlackey

i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell to anyone who believes that

---

;)

Just look at the difference in outcomes between comparable types of legislation.

Obama's expansion of entitlements is likely to have an outcome similar to other expansions of entitlements (grossly underestimated medicare expansion costs).

A reduction is likely to be similar to other reductions that worked, like Clinton's welfare reform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona...pportunity_Act

I don't see how they are at all comparable.

No other prior "entitlement" legislation has placed the same kind of compulsion to purchase from private industry in the way this one does.
This is breaking new ground for the US in a way not done before, and we'll both have to hold our breath and hope for the best outcome, because nobody can say with any certainty what impacts this will have in the long run.
Anything else is baseless fearmongering born of sour grapes.

No ultra conservative is going to give Obama or the Dems any benefit of the doubt or a fair chance in anything they do.

Once all the terms/costs/benefits of this kick-in and it starts hitting people in the pockets and affecting most Americans personally (either good or bad) then we'll be able to say if this was Obama's "New Deal" or "Iraq War".
Either way, whatever ignorant speculation you or I post here won't have a bearing on it one way or t'other.

I wish him, congress, and America the best of success, and if the Repubs take Washington back over I hope they've learned their lesson and wish them success for America too.

Forcing people to buy insurance is just one component of this. I don't see how that moves the legislation away from being similar in many substantial ways to other medicare entitlement expansions that cost way more than projected.