Lefty 0 #1 March 14, 2012 Twice as much as advertised when it was rammed down our collective throat. Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 March 14, 2012 Why should the fact we can't afford it get in the way ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #3 March 14, 2012 QuoteWhy should the fact we can't afford it get in the way ? Because it, or some thing like it we can afford, is needed. The Senate should just trim out the fat and it would be good to go. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewGuy2005 51 #4 March 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy should the fact we can't afford it get in the way ? Because it, or some thing like it we can afford, is needed. The Senate should just trim out the fat and it would be good to go. Matt Now, that's funny! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charlie5 0 #5 March 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy should the fact we can't afford it get in the way ? Because it, or some thing like it we can afford, is needed. The Senate should just trim out the fat and it would be good to go. Matt If they did that all they'd have left is the hoofsThe feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #6 March 14, 2012 QuoteTwice as much as advertised when it was rammed down our collective throat. Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming. That's what happens when Republicans decide to feed for-profit corporations government money. We could have been "socialists" and had the not for profit single-payer system Obama wanted with lower costs. Instead Republicans opted to enhance insurance industry profits instead by requiring all citizens to buy their product with tax dollars to help out where the financial burden would be too high. It's a lot like their Medicare Part D plan to funnel tax dollars into the insurance and health care industries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 262 #7 March 14, 2012 QuoteTwice as much as advertised when it was rammed down our collective throat. Raise your hand if you didn't see coming. Sucks that health care is expensive as a war. Cut back by one war in the next decade perhaps? Sounds like someone is doing something about better access to health care... but the problem of lowering cost of health care (per unit of care) in the US hasn't been attacked... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #8 March 14, 2012 We just did cut back by one war, but we're open to suggestions to fill the gap.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #9 March 14, 2012 >We just did cut back by one war, but we're open to suggestions to fill the gap. Let's skip the war with Iran completely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charlie5 0 #10 March 14, 2012 Quote>We just did cut back by one war, but we're open to suggestions to fill the gap. Let's skip the war with Iran completely. I'm sure we will. After all our leader has a Nobel PEACE prize.The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #11 March 14, 2012 QuoteTwice as much as advertised when it was rammed down our collective throat. Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #12 March 14, 2012 You seem to have neglected to mention how much the same amount of health care would have cost without the legislation. Without that number, we can't tell how much extra the population is spending. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #13 March 14, 2012 >You seem to have neglected to mention how much the same amount of health care >would have cost without the legislation. It would be super cheap. Just go to the ER, don't pay and then declare bankruptcy. Zero cost. Everyone wins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #14 March 14, 2012 QuoteYou seem to have neglected to mention how much the same amount of health care would have cost without the legislation. Without that number, we can't tell how much extra the population is spending. I would have, if I had been trying to make that point. This is more of a "Oh look, another government program sold to us as a pipe dream. Hope-n-change, etc" thread.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 March 14, 2012 QuoteWe could have been "socialists" and had the not for profit single-payer system Obama wanted with lower costs. Let me ask you something: With health care there are three goals. We want healthcare to be: (1) High quality (2) Accessible on Demand; and (3) Inexpensive. Problem: you cannot have all three. Presently in the US we have a high quality, accessible on demand healthcare system that is expensive (of course, the fact that so much is spent on compliance with federal demands and that federal, state and local governments already constitute about 2/3 of all healthcare spending in the US doesn't ever seen to be acknowledged by those who argue for more government). What you are arguing for is an inexpensive health care system that is either rationed or low quality. Why are either of these somehow more acceptable to you? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #16 March 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteWe could have been "socialists" and had the not for profit single-payer system Obama wanted with lower costs. Let me ask you something: With health care there are three goals. We want healthcare to be: (1) High quality (2) Accessible on Demand; and (3) Inexpensive. I'm not asking for all three. I just don't think that the government should be helping insurance companies increase their profits (through subsidies for the less affluent to purchase their product with unbounded costs, favorable tax treatment that has the better off spending more money than they would otherwise, and other things like the anti-trust exemption) thus making an expensive system cost more than it needs to. France has one of the most expensive medical systems in the world where people don't wait for treatment. As of 2005 they were spending $3,300 annually per capita. The United states spent $6,400 that year. As long as the governments are going to monkey with the health care system (With 80 million of us getting our insurance through them gorilla might make a better metaphor) I think they should be doing it on the citizens' behalf not the lobbyists'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 March 14, 2012 QuoteI just don't think that the government should be helping insurance companies I agree. This deal mainly helps out: (1) Pharma; (2) Unions administering health benefits; and (3) kinda helps insurance companies. I personally can't see private insurance companies being able to do much. They'll fall under the regulations and control of the federal government. They'll do okay for a while but wither on the vine. We know this because it's been known all along that this would actually cost more because it wasn't to be implemented until 2014. That meant that the 10 year projection was going to be non-representative of the actual cost. Once it took hold, whoa nilly! Finally - take the rule of costs of governmental action, which is "whatever they say it will cost, multiply it by three." The level of bureaucracy will be incredible. They'll turn the practice of medicine slowly into nursing while expanding the job descriptions of nursing and physicians' assistant (they are less expensive). It's the way it'll go. Insurance companies will be among the long-run losers. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 March 15, 2012 QuoteYou seem to have neglected to mention how much the same amount of health care would have cost without the legislation. Without that number, we can't tell how much extra the population is spending. and is that not what this number represents? The add-on cost? We spent 2.6T in 2010 alone. This is the cost of the change, for better or worse. The fact that they tried to average down the costs with the first 3 dead years gives an indication that it's not cheap. It is difficult to project the future as-is, as our current systems is clearly untenable. But like SS, it's an open question as to when it will fall apart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #19 March 15, 2012 QuoteTwice as much as advertised when it was rammed down our collective throat. Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming. In 2006, Health Care cost 15.3% of United States' GDP- far more than most countries. To make matters worse, the system doesn't cover everybody and the healthcare service received is ranked worse than other Western countries. Heck, the 2010 study listed the U.S healthcare quality around the bottom. To compensate, the right-wing publishes horror stories of Government healthcare. Studies vs stories. Its really odd how people keep on clinging on simple catchphrases like "all Government spending is bad". Another day in bizzaro world where people seem to prefer the old system of low-quality healthcare and high cost. Cheers! Shc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 March 15, 2012 Quotehealthcare service received is ranked worse than other Western countries You're a fairly academic person. Identify the metric. Quote2010 study listed the U.S healthcare quality around the bottom What study??? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #21 March 15, 2012 QuoteThe United states spent $6,400 that year How much of that was governent spending? I have a sneaky suspicion that since the government is the majority spender, government just might be a big part of the problem. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 292 #22 March 15, 2012 My per capita health insurance costs that in two weeks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 March 15, 2012 QuoteTo make matters worse, the system doesn't cover everybody and the healthcare service received is ranked worse than other Western countries. Heck, the 2010 study listed the U.S healthcare quality around the bottom. Wrong - in the 'responsiveness' stat (the one that actually shows how well the hospital/doctors perform), the US is ranked #1 in the *very* skewed WHO "study".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #24 March 15, 2012 Mike: Can't say he's wrong. He mentioned a 2010 study. I believe you are mentioning the 2001 study that measured sought to gauge which countries did socialized medicine the best. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 March 15, 2012 QuoteMike: Can't say he's wrong. He mentioned a 2010 study. I believe you are mentioning the 2001 study that measured sought to gauge which countries did socialized medicine the best. I missed the 2010 - hopefully he'll provide a link to the report.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
