H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:24 pm
@BillRM,


If Obamacare is adopted, you will soon wish for the good old days of right now.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:25 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

You have guessed incorrectly... would you care to try again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a quess at all that what you are no matter what you might wish to call yourself


Strike two!

Your incorrect opinion of me has been noted.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:26 pm
Oy gevalt. This is not just about health care.

Once many small businesses realize that letting one or a few people go, to afford the national health plan, does not work, they could sell out to the big corporate competition. With time, small business becomes a shell of what it had been in the 20th century. Oh, and guess who big corporations hire - a different demographic than small business. The game is afoot Watson.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:29 pm
@Foofie,


Oy gevalt is right. Obamacare has very little to do with health care.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:43 pm
You know the worst part? Poor and elderly people might have access to medicines and doctors!
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:47 pm
@NickFun,
NickFun wrote:

You know the worst part? Poor and elderly people might have access to medicines and doctors!


The poor and elderly are likely the very first group to be hurt by Obamacare.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:55 pm
@NickFun,


The poor and elderly are much more sensitive to higher taxes & costs, the rationing of health
care and the decreased quality of health care that will surely result if Obamacare is adopted.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:06 pm
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:

Where is getting a second job on your list of things to do?

Where is getting a smaller shelter on your list of things to do.

Where is deciding not to have a child if you cannot afford one, on your list of things to do?

Where is personal responsibility on your list of character traits?


"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:07 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:08 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:
This question has more than three words in it, therefore he can only look at it like a dog that's just been shown a card trick.


rothmfflmao!!
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:24 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,



Sell the children off for scientific testing.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:25 pm
@kickycan,


KicktheCan made a funny Laughing
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:31 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Quote:
That is called FREEDOM.

I like freedom. I can choose who and which charity I want to help, just as you may do.

So you answered your own question.

And you just answered mine - you're the sort of American who feels free to access healthcare for you and yours and and say to hell with anyone else.



or a republican member of congress?
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:38 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,

More likely a democrat Obamabot member of congress - the party with the "do as we say - not as we do" slogan.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:48 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
guess if ya don't pay in, ya can't collect. similar to unemployment or ssi, i guess.


You dont have to pay into SSI to collect.

my bad. i meant to say SDI.


As for unemployment, an employee does NOT pay into unemployment.

right. but perhaps it could still be a similar idea. i'm just looking for solutions.



even if that solution is giving the insurance companies some serious competition. right now, they can, and do, get away murder.

0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:51 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:




Sell the children off for scientific testing.


right. starting with all of the ones related to you?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:53 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:


More likely a democrat Obamabot member of congress - the party with the "do as we say - not as we do" slogan.


you might want to remind Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Newt and Haggerty about that.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 08:17 pm
@NickFun,
NickFun wrote:

You know the worst part? Poor and elderly people might have access to medicines and doctors!


With national health care everyone can then have the pleasure of the indignity of waiting endless hours to see a doctor, or doctor's assistant, just like the poor or elderly today (in a hospital emergency room). It will be another "spreading the wealth around gambit," only this time it will be indignity, not wealth.

Under this administration the end result could be quasi-haves, instead of a society of haves and have nots. It was so hard to pursue happiness in prior times. Soon we can all be in the same level playing field shoveling shiess.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 12:16 am
I would feel a whole lot better about it if our legislators and the media were asking and/or addressing the questions Thomas Sowell points out here:

Quote:
Jewish World Review July 21, 2009 29 Tamuz 5769
Medical care confusion
By Thomas Sowell

Is there a coherent argument for government-controlled medical care or are slogans and hysteria considered sufficient?

We hear endlessly about how many Americans don't have health insurance. But, if we stop and think " which politicians hope we never do " that raises the question as to why that calls for government-controlled medical care.

A bigger question is whether medical care will be better or worse after the government takes it over. There are many available facts relevant to those crucial questions but remarkably little interest in those facts.

There are facts about the massive government-run medical programs already in existence in the United States " Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' hospitals " as well as government-run medical systems in other countries.

None of the people who are trying to rush government-run medical care through Congress before we have time to think about it are pointing to Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' hospitals as shining examples of how wonderful we can expect government medical care to be when it becomes "universal."

As for those uninsured Americans we keep hearing about, there is remarkably little interest in why they don't have insurance. It cannot be poverty, for the poor can automatically get Medicaid.

In fact, we already know that there are people with substantial incomes who choose to spend those incomes on other things, especially if they are young and in good health. If necessary, they can always go to a hospital emergency room and receive treatment there, whether or not they have insurance.

Here, the advocates of government-run medical care say that we all end up paying, one way or another, for the free medical care that hospitals are forced by law to provide in their emergency rooms. But unless you think that any situation you don't like is a reason to give politicians a blank check for "change," the relevant question becomes whether the alternative is either less expensive or of better quality. Nothing is cheaper just because part of the price is paid in higher taxes.

Such questions seldom get asked, much less answered. We are like someone being rushed by a used car dealer to sign on the dotted line. But getting stuck with a car that is a lemon is nothing compared to signing away your right to decide what medical care you or your loved ones will get in life and death situations.

Here, the advocates of government-run medical care say that we all end up paying, one way or another, for the free medical care that hospitals are forced by law to provide in their emergency rooms. But unless you think that any situation you don't like is a reason to give politicians a blank check for "change," the relevant question becomes whether the alternative is either less expensive or of better quality. Nothing is cheaper just because part of the price is paid in higher taxes.
MORE HERE:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell072109.php3
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 01:53 am
@Foxfyre,
Some interesting facts that may help to answer some of Sowell's questions:
Quote:
Health Insurance Costs

This document is also available as a printable .pdf file.
Health Insurance Costs

Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care

Introduction

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate and forcing businesses and families to cut back on operations and household expenses respectively.

In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent " two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.2

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

National Health Care Spending

* In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1
* Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3
* In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1
* Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3
* Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4


Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs

* Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2
* The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).
* Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2
* Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.2
* Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.5
* According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999.2
* The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 120 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.6
* The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, that exceeds $2,000 a year, rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 " a 16 percent increase.7


The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs

* National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage.2
* Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage.8
* A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.
* A new survey shows that more than 25 percent said that housing problems resulted from medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the development of bad credit ratings.10
* About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs. 11
* A survey of Iowa consumers found that in order to cope with rising health insurance costs, 86 percent said they had cut back on how much they could save, and 44 percent said that they have cut back on food and heating expenses.12
* Retiring elderly couples will need $250,000 in savings just to pay for the most basic medical coverage.13 Many experts believe that this figure is conservative and that $300,000 may be a more realistic number.
* According to a recent report, the United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in comparison to Western European nations that have universal health insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess administrative costs and poorer quality of care.14
* The United States spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than its peer Western European nations.14


The entire document can be found here:http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Quote:
Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' hospitals " as well as government-run medical systems in other countries.

Yes, but in our country when anything is geared and presented as appropriate for the poor or the elderly, and finally, maybe most shamefully- veterans - it's substandard.
Maybe if it's universal - people will start caring about what kind of care is provided.

So H2O man - are you against a nationalized health care plan in general - or just against Obama's specifically?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:43:55