Ted Kennedy to be succeeded by a toolbag

[auctioneer69]

You can research it for yourself.

 

The question to me was, "What is my proposal for the uninsured?" Try to stay with the thread.

 

If you can't tell the difference between what I've proposed and the monstrosity that is Obamacare then yes you are daft.

 

 

Obamacare? A term straight from the right-wing pundits. Unlike, Bill Clinton 14 years ago (for better or worse) the President let the Congress and the Senate craft the bill. Monstrosity? Again, straight from the right-wing pundits. Maybe a term you could use it there was an unfunded public option contained within the plan or an unfunded option to cover illegal aliens. If you want to take a look at enacted piece of legislation that is a monstrosity look no further than Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Act. Passed with no funding (thus guaranteed to increase the deficit), one that didn't allow the Government to bargain with the drug companies and passed after all types of shenanigans in the House of Representatives. At the time called the most fiscally irresponsible bill since the 1960's by the US Comptroller General. Without endorsing it, I would say what you call "Obamacare" pales in comparison. Of course back in 2003 when Bush's Bill passed the right-wing shock jocks were consumed by the Iraq War.

 

As for your numbers of the uninsured, the largest group without insurance are indeed those under 30. About 20% of those without insurance are non-citizens but this group is composed of legal and non-legal foreign born residents something that your assertion doesn't recognize.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/uninsured-us-citizens/

 

It's an undeniable fact that we all subsidize the the uninsured through the higher premiums which offset the lost revenue that hospitals and medical professionals don't collect from those without insurance.

 

Also, those without insurance have a 40% higher chance of death than those with coverage. The corresponding figure was 25% in 1993.

[auctioneer69]

Part of the problem is that people do not shop around when they have insurance coverage. I am not talking about emergency care, but treatment and preventative care is hardly shopped around, because someone else (insurance) is paying for it. Two doctors each on the other end of town may have a difference in $300.00 when it comes to treatment or surgery or whatever. If you were shopping for a tv you would be driving across town to pick it up, but if you were using another person's money you might not make the effort to go across town. On that notion I like the idea of health savings account.

 

Totally agree with you there. High-deductible plans have definitely encouraged me to more closely monitor my spending.

 

If you are being respectful, I do not mind the harp.

 

When Republicans where in control in the early 2000 Bush signed into the law medicare prescription bill. With the assumption that the price would not skyrocket. Well the price has skyrocketed. Its the same story here. Price will skyrocket. We need to stop doing the exact thing over and over again.

 

Part of the reason is that the bill doesn't allow Medicare to bargain with the Drug Companies. The mother of all handouts.

[JohnO]

Obamacare? A term straight from the right-wing pundits. Unlike, Bill Clinton 14 years ago (for better or worse) the President let the Congress and the Senate craft the bill. Monstrosity? Again, straight from the right-wing pundits. Maybe a term you could use it there was an unfunded public option contained within the plan or an unfunded option to cover illegal aliens. If you want to take a look at enacted piece of legislation that is a monstrosity look no further than Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Act. Passed with no funding (thus guaranteed to increase the deficit), one that didn't allow the Government to bargain with the drug companies and passed after all types of shenanigans in the House of Representatives.

 

Obama has thrown the full weight of his Presidency behind this initiative so yes it is Obamacare. Monstrosity is an apt description so if the shoe fits... I completely agree with you about Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Act. Which is precisely why we should not give government any bigger role in health care. Politicians just cannot say no. They'll align with anyone who will help them get reelected no matter what it costs the taxpayer. They have bankrupted Medicare and now they're going after another 1/6th of the American economy. Enough is enough.

 

Oh and factcheck.org is a mouth piece of and funded by the left so it is hardly an unbiased representation of the facts.

[auctioneer69]

Obama has thrown the full weight of his Presidency behind this initiative so yes it is Obamacare. Monstrosity is an apt description so if the shoe fits... I completely agree with you about Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Act. Which is precisely why we should not give government any bigger role in health care. Politicians just cannot say no. They'll align with anyone who will help them get reelected no matter what it costs the taxpayer. They have bankrupted Medicare and now they're going after another 1/6th of the American economy. Enough is enough.

 

Oh and factcheck.org is a mouth piece of and funded by the left so it is hardly an unbiased representation of the facts.

 

Funny that factcheck.org is used by both Republican and Democrat politicians to counter the arguments of their opponents. (I don't watch Fox News religiously so hadn't heard it was biased before) I think if you look at the link you'll see stuff that supports your point about a large portion of the uninsured being under the age of 30.

 

I know it's goes against conventional logic but in other countries where the Government has a far bigger role in healthcare than the U.S. based on results healthcare is more efficient and costs less. I didn't say better just that it consumes about half of what it does here as a percentage of GDP and health outcomes (with the exception of some cancer survival rates) are the same or better.

[Guest Speed Racer]

You can research it for yourself.

 

I think it's the burden of the person throwing out assertions to support them with facts, myself. You clearly learned the numbers you cited from somewhere (right?) so I just want to know you where you got them from, is all.

 

 

Try to stay with the thread.

 

 

If you can't tell the difference between what I've proposed and the monstrosity that is Obamacare then yes you are daft.

 

Never said I supported the current health care legislation, but you are the one that said we needed no reform because there were no problems, and then said we needed legislation (reform) to amend existing issues (problems).

[D-Dogg]

If I am not mistaken, I thought the current health care bill was written mostly by the insurance industry, with of course Democratic leaders throwing their own spice on top.

 

I can't comprehend any senator or congress member writing yet alone reading 2000 pages of legal jargon.

[JohnO]

I think it's the burden of the person throwing out assertions to support them with facts, myself. You clearly learned the numbers you cited from somewhere (right?) so I just want to know you where you got them from, is all.

 

Never said I supported the current health care legislation, but you are the one that said we needed no reform because there were no problems, and then said we needed legislation (reform) to amend existing issues (problems).

 

Accept them or contest them, the numbers are what they are.

 

I never said "we needed no reform because there were no problems". You've confused me with a different poster.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I never said "we needed no reform because there were no problems". You've confused me with a different poster.

 

What is your solution to the health care problem?

 

What problem?

 

Accepting your figures, if you subtract the number of Medicaid/care recipients, those who choose not to be insured and illegal immigrants, there's a problem that faces a number of people totaling (pick your favorite): the entire state of Ohio; the states of Michigan, Delaware and South Dakota combined; the metro area of Chicago; 7 times the population affected by Hurricane Katrina; or the entire nation of Haiti; and you don't think that constitutes a need for the United States to address these tax-paying individuals?

[JohnO]

Ahh where exactly in those quotes did I state, "we needed no reform because there were no problems"? My eyesite's not the best but my reading comprehension is excellent.

 

The way I read it is bjorn_skurj's question was very broad, as health care is a multi-faceted topic I asked for clarification to which he responded "the uninsured". I then respond with my "solution" on the uninsured and threw in 2 cents on perscription drug costs as well. I'm afraid in this case the inferences you've drawn are all your own.

[JohnO]

Funny that factcheck.org is used by both Republican and Democrat politicians to counter the arguments of their opponents. (I don't watch Fox News religiously so hadn't heard it was biased before) I think if you look at the link you'll see stuff that supports your point about a large portion of the uninsured being under the age of 30.

 

I know it's goes against conventional logic but in other countries where the Government has a far bigger role in healthcare than the U.S. based on results healthcare is more efficient and costs less. I didn't say better just that it consumes about half of what it does here as a percentage of GDP and health outcomes (with the exception of some cancer survival rates) are the same or better.

I know, it cracks me up when these so called "professional news organizations" reference some unauthenticated website as a source for their reporting. There are much better sources on the topic but pretty much any numbers can be fudged. Liars, damn liars and statistics!

 

In healthcare efficiency and low cost are not quality metrics. It's very difficult if not impossible to do a straight comparison of health care between countries because geography and population density play a vital role in the delivery of services. For example the only other countries that compare to us in size and population, China, India and Russia, lag far behind based on any comparative basis. Reform yes, government take over no.

[Doug C]

Accept them or contest them, the numbers are what they are.

Are you unwilling or unable to cite the source of your numbers? Which is it? As speed racer said, you must have gotten them from somewhere. Why the refusal to post the source?

[bobbob1313]

How is the current senate bill a "government takeover" of health care?

[auctioneer69]

How is the current senate bill a "government takeover" of health care?

 

 

You obviously don't listen to Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. Even though there is no public option and there's nothing that remotely looks like a single-payer system this is undoubtedly, according to these pundits, phase one of a government take-over of healthcare. The temerity of these out-of-touch extreme left-wingers. They won't he content until the Government controls every aspect of your life.

[D-Dogg]

You obviously don't listen to Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. Even though there is no public option and there's nothing that remotely looks like a single-payer system this is undoubtedly, according to these pundits, phase one of a government take-over of healthcare. The temerity of these out-of-touch extreme left-wingers. They won't he content until the Government controls every aspect of your life.

 

Come on guys it is something that does not happen over night.

 

There was a government option, and then there was not one, and then there was one, and no one really knows because they prohibit anyone to see it, read it and negotiations were behind closed doors. The leaders of the house, senate and Obama all wanted a single payer system and they were making every effort to get one. The senators and congress have no idea what they were voting for. Which is of course not out of the ordinary with any bill. Hence Kerry's problems in 2004, and many other senators when facing a governor when competing for the Presidency.

 

However when government is competing in business they have unfair advantage. When costs become to great government can simply raise taxes and subsidize the costs where other companies have to raise prices. Thus slowly taking out the competition and taking over the industry, and when the competition is gone services and value declines.

[auctioneer69]

Come on guys it is something that does not happen over night.

 

There was a government option, and then there was not one, and then there was one, and no one really knows because they prohibit anyone to see it, read it and negotiations were behind closed doors. The leaders of the house, senate and Obama all wanted a single payer system and they were making every effort to get one. The senators and congress have no idea what they were voting for. Which is of course not out of the ordinary with any bill. Hence Kerry's problems in 2004, and many other senators when facing a governor when competing for the Presidency.

 

However when government is competing in business they have unfair advantage. When costs become to great government can simply raise taxes and subsidize the costs where other companies have to raise prices. Thus slowly taking out the competition and taking over the industry, and when the competition is gone services and value declines.

 

At this point, I gracefully retire from this thread. Back to the music

[D-Dogg]

At this point, I gracefully retire from this thread. Back to the music

 

This is a music forum?

[Basil II]

music .....cranked loud....helps in dealing wit politico B f*ckin' S*it.

 

 

-Robert

[ikol]

How is the current senate bill a "government takeover" of health care?

 

It's more of a half-assed takeover. It not only mandates that you should have insurance, but what kind. If the Senate deems that it doesn't cover enough, you're fined. If it's too much, it's labeled a "Cadillac" plan, and you're subject to additional taxes. If you prefer to have a high deductible plan with health savings accounts to cover out of pocket costs, the governments further limits what you can put into those accounts. I don't see the need for these mandated insurance exchanges, when they could just make it legal to buy insurance from across state lines. And they're paying for this bill through Medicare cuts. Primary care doctors are already being screwed by low Medicare reimbursements, not to mention refusal to reimburse for treating "hospital-acquired" infections and hiring private companies to meticulously audit medical records for overbilling so that they can collect a portion of the refund. If you're going to further cut Medicare and then propose a bill that sets the stage for further government control of payments (and thus a bigger portion of their income subject to the whims of the government), you're going to have a lot of 50 year doctors retire.

[mrs. browning]

It's more of a half-assed takeover. It not only mandates that you should have insurance, but what kind. If the Senate deems that it doesn't cover enough, you're fined. If it's too much, it's labeled a "Cadillac" plan, and you're subject to additional taxes. If you prefer to have a high deductible plan with health savings accounts to cover out of pocket costs, the governments further limits what you can put into those accounts. I don't see the need for these mandated insurance exchanges, when they could just make it legal to buy insurance from across state lines. And they're paying for this bill through Medicare cuts. Primary care doctors are already being screwed by low Medicare reimbursements, not to mention refusal to reimburse for treating "hospital-acquired" infections and hiring private companies to meticulously audit medical records for overbilling so that they can collect a portion of the refund. If you're going to further cut Medicare and then propose a bill that sets the stage for further government control of payments (and thus a bigger portion of their income subject to the whims of the government), you're going to have a lot of 50 year doctors retire.

So true!

[Good Old Neon]

Thank you,

 

Maybe Obama can get his ACORN mafia to go out and enroll these people.

 

and

 

Obama is so far in bed with both big Pharma and the one world crowd

 

really helped me to understand the level of your discourse.

[Good Old Neon]

From the Daily Dish:

 

If The Republicans Finally Did Destroy Obama, their future would look a little something like this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFDmcDW9uwc

[JohnO]

Are you unwilling or unable to cite the source of your numbers? Which is it? As speed racer said, you must have gotten them from somewhere. Why the refusal to post the source?

 

You're missing the point. This health care debate has been going on for over 2 years now. If you don't already know that the uninsured are not a homogeneous group then you should first get educated on the topic. And just so we’re clear here I am not an educator, I’m just another idiot offering opinions on a message board. Someone here has already posted a source at factscheck.org so you can start there if you like. There are all kinds of academic, media, government and health industry research available that you should seek out and read as well in order to draw your own conclusions.

[Doug C]

You're missing the point. This health care debate has been going on for over 2 years now. If you don't already know that the uninsured are not a homogeneous group then you should first get educated on the topic. And just so we’re clear here I am not an educator, I’m just another idiot offering opinions on a message board. Someone here has already posted a source at factscheck.org so you can start there if you like. There are all kinds of academic, media, government and health industry research available that you should seek out and read as well in order to draw your own conclusions.

I am not missing the point at all. You seemed to revel in mocking the credibility of auctioneer69 citing factcheck.org as a source: "Oh and factcheck.org is a mouth piece of and funded by the left so it is hardly an unbiased representation of the facts." Why are you unwilling to state the source of your figures and allow someone else the opportunity to criticize them as being biased?

[Guest Speed Racer]

You're missing the point. This health care debate has been going on for over 2 years now. If you don't already know that the uninsured are not a homogeneous group then you should first get educated on the topic. And just so we’re clear here I am not an educator, I’m just another idiot offering opinions on a message board. Someone here has already posted a source at factscheck.org so you can start there if you like. There are all kinds of academic, media, government and health industry research available that you should seek out and read as well in order to draw your own conclusions.

 

So you're unable to cite your sources, is what you're saying. You're the person who was calling factcheck.org an instrument of the left a few pages earlier, and now they're okay?

 

No one is saying they are unable to track these things down for themselves, but if you're throwing out figures you ought to be able to cite their source. Obviously the uninsured are not a homogenous group, and this debate has been going on for FAR longer than 2 years.

 

I've said it multiple times in this thread, and I'll say it again: I think the current bill on the table is absolute crap - in trying to placate everyone the bill succeeds in angering and disappointing everyone. The only solution I see is universal health care coverage for ALL legal residents in the United States. That, to me, is the ony way we can provide coverage for everyone and ensure the quality of life and public health and safety that we all want to have as individuals.

[Atticus]

The only solution I see is universal health care coverage for ALL legal residents in the United States. That, to me, is the ony way we can provide coverage for everyone and ensure the quality of life and public health and safety that we all want to have as individuals.

 

[rant]when the country stops believing that there is a universal right to HDTVs, ipods, cellphones, bling and other creature comforts, I think maybe the concept of universal healthcare might become more palatable universally[/rant]