IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@Cycloptichorn,

Here's an excellent article on the Massachusetts health plan that speaks straight to the issues of higher cost balanced with what is happening in their state.
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2135#more-2135

What is it in this statement that is untrue?

Quote:

On the other hand, Americans' willingness to pay for health reform has limits. Our results show that, for a majority, the cost of the policies currently under consideration by Congress exceeds those limits.

From CNN:

Quote:

July 1, 2009
CNN Poll: Americans worry Obama health care plan will increase costs
Posted: July 1st, 2009 05:00 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

WASHINGTON (CNN)" A new national poll suggests that a bare majority of Americans support President Barack Obama's health care plan.

But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning indicates that most people are worried that their health care costs would go up if the administration's proposals are passed and only one in five think that their families would be better off under the Obama plan.

Fifty-one percent of people questioned in the poll say they favor the president's health care plan, with 45 percent opposed. Obama aims to bring down health care costs and provide medical insurance to many of the more than 45 million Americans currently without coverage. His proposals, which are making their way through five different congressional committees in the Senate and the House, also call for a government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers.

"Women and younger Americans are slightly more likely to support Obama's approach to health care," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Those are usually the groups that are more concerned about health care and health insurance."

T

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

First of all, that poll is from July and is sort of old. The conversation has moved on quite a bit from the screaming matches this summer.

Second, the quote you posted is an opinion. It isn't reflected by polling data. I could just as easily provide other polling which refutes it, such as the one you will find here -

Quote:

Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?

Favor Oppose Not Sure

All 60 (59) 33 (34) 7 (7)

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/10/1/US/386

I haven't seen any evidence which shows that the health care reform being proposed will lead to higher costs for consumers - especially given the double-digit per year rises in health care costs they are currently experiencing. Those who worry about having to pay more are already in that situation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It may be old, but the sentiment remains the same. Show me different?

As for higher cost to consumers, that all depends on what plans are offered, and who ends up paying. All I've seen so far is a figure like $891 billion which doesn't have any detailed support of any of these numbers.

1 Reply

PROBLEM SOLVED!!!...Kind of...

Quote:

According to German research published in New England Journal of Medicine, men staring at women's breasts in fact prolong their lives with years.

"Just 10 minutes of looking at the charms of a well-endowed females is equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out," said author Dr. Karen Weatherby, a gerontologist.

The team led by Weatherby was made up of researchers at three hospitals in Frankfurt, Germany, and found this results after monitoring for 5 years the health of 200 male subjects, half of whom were asked to look at busty females daily, while the other half had to abstain from doing so.

For five years, the breasts oglers presented a lower blood pressure, slower resting pulse rates and decreased risk of coronary artery disease.

"Sexual excitement gets the heart pumping and improves blood circulation. There's no question: Gazing at large breasts makes men healthier. Our study indicates that engaging in this activity a few minutes daily cuts the risk of stroke and heart attack in half." said Weatherby, who even recommends that men aged over 40 should spend at least 10 minutes daily admiring breasts sized "D-cup" or larger.

Well, men, look at breasts, then:

Looking at breasts is as healthy as going to the gym for 30 minutes daily and prolonged a man's life by five years.

source: http://www.wholefitness.com/looking-breasts.html

Titties.
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Now, that's real research I can have faith in.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It may be old, but the sentiment remains the same. Show me different?

What sentiment? That people are worried about the costs?

Of course they are! It's a recession, everyone is worried about costs right now. But that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that people would rather see the current proposed reforms fail than take a chance on making a change which could improve our system tremendously.

If we were not in an environment in which costs were increasing by 10% or more every year, then we wouldn't have to be worrying about these things. The current situation is terrible. It is unsustainable and will bankrupt our people if it is allowed to continue. We spend twice as much per-person on health care than any other country, for worse results. When you are faced with a terrible situation, you have to come up with solutions that would be more expensive than if things were going along just fine.

Quote:

As for higher cost to consumers, that all depends on what plans are offered, and who ends up paying. All I've seen so far is a figure like $891 billion which doesn't have any detailed support of any of these numbers.

What? I don't understand this at all. The different plans have been pretty clear about where the money will come from.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Precisely! They are worried about higher costs; that will not change until congress and/or the president shows us how it will not cost more. They still haven't made their case.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Precisely! They are worried about higher costs; that will not change until congress and/or the president shows us how it will not cost more. They still haven't made their case.

Dude. They have made their case. You just aren't bothering to actually look into it.

To break it down simply, the Public Option will lower health-care costs overall by breaking the for-profit health-insurance industry's lock on the market. It provides negative price pressure on an industry which currently doesn't have any. What is hard to understand about that?

Additionally, the status quo is a failure and unsustainable. This makes alternate solutions much more attractive, even if they are costly. Our current system is costly. Switching from one costly system to another isn't a problem, especially if we get better results out of it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You are talking in general terms without details - like the government has been doing.

The public option doesn't necessarily reduce cost; who pays for the uninsured, and the middle and lower income people's share? What are the anticipated cost for their health insurance, and who's going to pay it?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You are talking in general terms without details - like the government has been doing.

The public option doesn't necessarily reduce cost; who pays for the uninsured, and the middle and lower income people's share?

Well, there won't be any 'uninsured' after it passes. But the plans which are currently in place call for higher taxes on the rich, taxes on cadillac insurance plans, the elimination of Medicare advantage, and a tax on employers who don't provide health insurance. Is that specific enough for you?

There will be additional savings realized from hospitals which are currently being reimbursed from the gov't to pay for Emergency room vists from people without insurance.

Private insurers will be forced to lower their rates, for two reasons. First, the individual mandate is going to increase their customer pool by a lot. Second, the Public Option will probably be quite a bit cheaper than their plans, so they will have to lower costs in order to stay competitive. This isn't a huge deal in an industry which profits in the dozens of billions every year, though they are of course bitching about it.

Quote:

What are the anticipated cost for their health insurance, and who's going to pay it?

The anticipated costs are 3-5 grand per person in the Public option, on average. Additionally, those enrolled in the PO who are not poor - and there will be a lot of them - will be paying into the system in order to support it.

I'll be able to discuss this with much more certainty once a unified bill is put forth. Right now, we're criticizing a painting which isn't finished yet. Hard to get a good idea of what the entire picture will look like until it is.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'll be able to discuss this with much more certainty once a unified bill is put forth. Right now, we're criticizing a painting which isn't finished yet. Hard to get a good idea of what the entire picture will look like until it is.

Cycloptichorn

Now, there is a statement I can't fault.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

Well, there won't be any 'uninsured' after it passes. But the plans which are currently in place call for higher taxes on the rich, taxes on cadillac insurance plans, the elimination of Medicare advantage, and a tax on employers who don't provide health insurance. Is that specific enough for you?

Specific enough to the point that these very issues have been getting flip-flopped like hamburger. Most, if not all on your list, have not been settled. How do you determine the cost without any agreement on these very issues?

That's the primary issue we are talking about; how does the government issue cost numbers when these important issues aren't even settled?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

They ask for cost projections for each competing set of numbers, just like Pelosi did with the House bills and the CBO last week.

Those projections are faulty, everyone knows it. It's unavoidable because it's extremely difficult to forecast the long-term effects of changes we make to the economy. Different models of human behavior and financial projections have to be balanced and an overall recommendation is made. It would be nice if we had a better projection of our plans for the future, but we've never really had that and I suspect we never will.

All we can do is our best; to put forth the best plans that we can come up with, based on several competing models. This is essentially what Congress has been doing since May.

Right now, neither house of Congress has put forth a unified bill. We can't make cost comparisons between them and the current system, because the bills aren't done yet. The arguments and discussions you have seen are about the merits of the individual bills - with the Republicans always trying to kill the whole thing out of political spite - as compared to each other, or the costs of the current system..

That's why the CBO has scored something like 6 different bills now. The government hasn't 'issued' any numbers. You follow politics closely enough to see the CBO numbers, but hardly anyone in America does that - or even knows what the CBO is. It's why politicians and pollsters don't talk or ask about individual dollar amounts very often - they don't resonate with people, who have a hard time understanding finance on a large scale. Heck, Economists have a hard time understanding a system this complex!

Nevertheless, we are stewards of this complex system and responsible for it. We cannot wait until we have a complete data set before making decisions - that is a recipe for paralysis and stagnation. That's not what America is all about.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

There-in lies the insecurity of the American people; we're now into a deep recession, and all we have seen is the government spending money in a very sloppy manner without really understanding how it'll impact job creation or inflation. The impression most of us get is that the feds are helping wall street more than they are helping main street, and gambling our financial future with higher deficits.

Don't misinterpret my challenges to mean I do not wish to see reform; even most American know our health care must be reformed, because the cost is getting way ahead of our ability to finance it.

There are universal health care systems in many countries and even some states that are relatively successful, and we need to combine the best ideas that will result in covering most Americans while creating enough savings to fund it.

I also believe a public option is a necessary component for it to be successful.
But even this one important issue has seen swings in support. Congress needs to spend more time looking at the successful programs over listening to all the distractions from the insurance industry, the republicans, and their parrots.

Trying to get republicans into this issue is a no-win problem; they want to defeat it to win the next election.

Congress gets side-tracked too easily, and Obama has not been consistent in his message to the people.

Even many democrats are confused and not with the program.

They seem to be working hard, but they also seem to go over the same issues and changing them from time to time, and never get consensus on anything.

It's more confusion than consistency, and it's no wonder most of us are confused.

That's what happens when you get so many lawyers working on one problem.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There are universal health care systems in many countries and even some states that are relatively successful, and we need to combine the best ideas that will result in covering most Americans while creating enough savings to fund it.

Why did you choose to ues the word "most" in that blather ci?

Everybody is covered here. Even the tramps.

"Most" just proves what a complete phoney you are.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There are universal health care systems in many countries and even some states that are relatively successful, and we need to combine the best ideas that will result in covering most Americans while creating enough savings to fund it

I thought the idea was to cover ALL Americans.
Even those that dont want it.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

I doubt very much the plan congress is planning on will cover all (100%) Americans. They've even discussed fees and penalties for individuals and/or companies who fail to get health insurance.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Most Americans are already covered. And if you then take out the illegals, the people that can afford health insurance but don't buy it, and the people that qualify for Medicaid but choose not to access it, there is a very very small percentage of the citizens here that remain uncovered. Why we don't simply fix those problems instead of engaging in this nonsensical trumped up hysteria is beyond me. That is politicians for you, and Obama is intent upon this to increase his power in government, that is what it appears to be. After all, if he simply wanted to solve problems, it would not take this mess to do it.

Also, he claims to want to fund his health care in part by saving tons of money with fixing waste and mismanagement in Medicare. Then why not do that first? Logic is not one of his strong points.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You are talking in general terms without details - like the government has been doing.

The public option doesn't necessarily reduce cost; who pays for the uninsured, and the middle and lower income people's share? What are the anticipated cost for their health insurance, and who's going to pay it?

Health care reform is going to include revenue raisers. For instance, there will be various tax increases, and even a tax on Cadillac plans.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Good! Now, show us how much the revenues are going to be from those initiatives vs how much it's going to cost to cover a) the uninsured, b) the poor and middle class, and c) legal immigrants?

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know