"We are out of money" says Obama "So we must subsidize health care"
-
SPEND SPEND SPEND!!! NOW!!! Muah Ha Ha HA HA!@!![^] SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money? OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. He is destroying us as fast as he can. What are we going to do about this?
-
SPEND SPEND SPEND!!! NOW!!! Muah Ha Ha HA HA!@!![^] SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money? OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. He is destroying us as fast as he can. What are we going to do about this?
-
SPEND SPEND SPEND!!! NOW!!! Muah Ha Ha HA HA!@!![^] SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money? OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. He is destroying us as fast as he can. What are we going to do about this?
This is the real issue, not the phoney 'rights of terrorist' issue. Universal health care would deal a far more devastating blow to the American way of life than all the tortured muslims or patriot acts ever could. Thats why the torture issue is so valuable to the left - it serves as a smoke screen for the real destruction of American rights. It makes it appear that they are ever so concerned about the rights of Americans when, in fact,nothing could be further from the truth. Universal health care will spell the end of American civililzation entirely. Once that is achieved, there is nothing left. It will save us no money, not only will I be paying for my own health care, I will also be paying for that of every ner-do-well in the country or who manages to stagger in to the country before collapsing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
This is the real issue, not the phoney 'rights of terrorist' issue. Universal health care would deal a far more devastating blow to the American way of life than all the tortured muslims or patriot acts ever could. Thats why the torture issue is so valuable to the left - it serves as a smoke screen for the real destruction of American rights. It makes it appear that they are ever so concerned about the rights of Americans when, in fact,nothing could be further from the truth. Universal health care will spell the end of American civililzation entirely. Once that is achieved, there is nothing left. It will save us no money, not only will I be paying for my own health care, I will also be paying for that of every ner-do-well in the country or who manages to stagger in to the country before collapsing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Universal health care will spell the end of American civililzation entirely.
Or worse! :omg: Universal Health Care is an extinction event!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Universal health care will spell the end of American civililzation entirely.
Or worse! :omg: Universal Health Care is an extinction event!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Universal Health Care is an extinction event!
Thats my prediction.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
What are we going to do about this?
What do you mean, "we," white man?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
This is the real issue, not the phoney 'rights of terrorist' issue. Universal health care would deal a far more devastating blow to the American way of life than all the tortured muslims or patriot acts ever could. Thats why the torture issue is so valuable to the left - it serves as a smoke screen for the real destruction of American rights. It makes it appear that they are ever so concerned about the rights of Americans when, in fact,nothing could be further from the truth. Universal health care will spell the end of American civililzation entirely. Once that is achieved, there is nothing left. It will save us no money, not only will I be paying for my own health care, I will also be paying for that of every ner-do-well in the country or who manages to stagger in to the country before collapsing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
The point of disagreement does not seem to be "universal helath care", or even subsidized health care, but rather government subsidized healthcare. It seems to be OK with practically everyone if employers subsidize our health care (which for most in the U.S. they do), even though this constitutes a massive hidden tax, and a subsidy that will disappear the minut it ceases to be a tax deduction to the employer. Employer subsidized heath care began as a competitive edge used by employers to attract the best employees, and grew into an "expected benefit" In most cases. It now constitutes a significant expense to most U.S. corporations, and is just one more disadvantage when competing against companies based in countries where the government sponsors the health care by taxing employee income or the sale of product (VAT) or both. I also thought government sponsored health care (with the government as the single payer) would save no money, but then alll the health care lobbyists told Obama that they could find a $T or mor in savings if only the government wouldn't take away their business. Now I fell duped by all sides, and damnd pissed off at the private health care industry that has magically found this $Trillion in savings... Everyone is lying.
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
People have to say enough is enough, they need not just say it, but make it known with action.
So what actions have you taken? it appears that you are emulating Ilion and merely shooting your mouth off on the internet.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
The point of disagreement does not seem to be "universal helath care", or even subsidized health care, but rather government subsidized healthcare. It seems to be OK with practically everyone if employers subsidize our health care (which for most in the U.S. they do), even though this constitutes a massive hidden tax, and a subsidy that will disappear the minut it ceases to be a tax deduction to the employer. Employer subsidized heath care began as a competitive edge used by employers to attract the best employees, and grew into an "expected benefit" In most cases. It now constitutes a significant expense to most U.S. corporations, and is just one more disadvantage when competing against companies based in countries where the government sponsors the health care by taxing employee income or the sale of product (VAT) or both. I also thought government sponsored health care (with the government as the single payer) would save no money, but then alll the health care lobbyists told Obama that they could find a $T or mor in savings if only the government wouldn't take away their business. Now I fell duped by all sides, and damnd pissed off at the private health care industry that has magically found this $Trillion in savings... Everyone is lying.
Rob Graham wrote:
It seems to be OK with practically everyone if employers subsidize our health care (which for most in the U.S. they do), even though this constitutes a massive hidden tax,
Made even more so by the fact that the benefit is tax-exempt.
Rob Graham wrote:
Everyone is lying.
Not true. Jimmy Carter promised.
Rob Graham wrote:
I also thought government sponsored health care (with the government as the single payer) would save no money
It is worthy of note that Medicare (whatever its sins and there are many) has a far lower overhead than any other health care plan. Also, according to my doctor, it is also quicker to reimburse, is less likely to refuse a legitimate claim, and requires less paperwork - all three of which of which lower his costs. Your earlier observations (and my Doc's whom I questioned because of what you said) have turned me around on this issue. In turn, I have helped my Brother-in-Law (who owns a small business) also see the light.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Universal Health Care is an extinction event!
Thats my prediction.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The point of disagreement does not seem to be "universal helath care", or even subsidized health care, but rather government subsidized healthcare. It seems to be OK with practically everyone if employers subsidize our health care (which for most in the U.S. they do), even though this constitutes a massive hidden tax, and a subsidy that will disappear the minut it ceases to be a tax deduction to the employer. Employer subsidized heath care began as a competitive edge used by employers to attract the best employees, and grew into an "expected benefit" In most cases. It now constitutes a significant expense to most U.S. corporations, and is just one more disadvantage when competing against companies based in countries where the government sponsors the health care by taxing employee income or the sale of product (VAT) or both. I also thought government sponsored health care (with the government as the single payer) would save no money, but then alll the health care lobbyists told Obama that they could find a $T or mor in savings if only the government wouldn't take away their business. Now I fell duped by all sides, and damnd pissed off at the private health care industry that has magically found this $Trillion in savings... Everyone is lying.
Rob Graham wrote:
It seems to be OK with practically everyone if employers subsidize our health care
Which in turn ends up subsidizing the mandated health care of those who have no insurance and sort of no means. At least with government as the payer, it will be a bit more transparent hopefully.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
The point of disagreement does not seem to be "universal helath care", or even subsidized health care, but rather government subsidized healthcare. It seems to be OK with practically everyone if employers subsidize our health care (which for most in the U.S. they do), even though this constitutes a massive hidden tax, and a subsidy that will disappear the minut it ceases to be a tax deduction to the employer. Employer subsidized heath care began as a competitive edge used by employers to attract the best employees, and grew into an "expected benefit" In most cases. It now constitutes a significant expense to most U.S. corporations, and is just one more disadvantage when competing against companies based in countries where the government sponsors the health care by taxing employee income or the sale of product (VAT) or both. I also thought government sponsored health care (with the government as the single payer) would save no money, but then alll the health care lobbyists told Obama that they could find a $T or mor in savings if only the government wouldn't take away their business. Now I fell duped by all sides, and damnd pissed off at the private health care industry that has magically found this $Trillion in savings... Everyone is lying.
Rob Graham wrote:
I also thought government sponsored health care (with the government as the single payer) would save no money, but then alll the health care lobbyists told Obama that they could find a $T or mor in savings if only the government wouldn't take away their business. Now I fell duped by all sides, and damnd pissed off at the private health care industry that has magically found this $Trillion in savings...
It will make no difference at all. There will be no savings. The lobbyists are duping Obama because he wants to be duped - that gives him plausible deniability when we find out that we were duped again. The only possible way to reduce health care costs is to return to a free market health care system. No health insurance, no employee health coverage. You go to the doctor, the doctor examines you, you pay the doctor. The is no system that can compete with that for simplicity and cost effectivness.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I also thought government sponsored health care (with the government as the single payer) would save no money, but then alll the health care lobbyists told Obama that they could find a $T or mor in savings if only the government wouldn't take away their business. Now I fell duped by all sides, and damnd pissed off at the private health care industry that has magically found this $Trillion in savings...
It will make no difference at all. There will be no savings. The lobbyists are duping Obama because he wants to be duped - that gives him plausible deniability when we find out that we were duped again. The only possible way to reduce health care costs is to return to a free market health care system. No health insurance, no employee health coverage. You go to the doctor, the doctor examines you, you pay the doctor. The is no system that can compete with that for simplicity and cost effectivness.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only possible way to reduce health care costs is to return to a free market health care system. No health insurance, no employee health coverage. You go to the doctor, the doctor examines you, you pay the doctor. The is no system that can compete with that for simplicity and cost effectivness.
Yes. And no. "Health insurance" and "free market" are not inherently inimical.
-
SPEND SPEND SPEND!!! NOW!!! Muah Ha Ha HA HA!@!![^] SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money? OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. He is destroying us as fast as he can. What are we going to do about this?
If this interview doesn't prove the man is an affable but complete moron with good intentions but no clue as to reality then I have a bridge to sell.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I also thought government sponsored health care (with the government as the single payer) would save no money, but then alll the health care lobbyists told Obama that they could find a $T or mor in savings if only the government wouldn't take away their business. Now I fell duped by all sides, and damnd pissed off at the private health care industry that has magically found this $Trillion in savings...
It will make no difference at all. There will be no savings. The lobbyists are duping Obama because he wants to be duped - that gives him plausible deniability when we find out that we were duped again. The only possible way to reduce health care costs is to return to a free market health care system. No health insurance, no employee health coverage. You go to the doctor, the doctor examines you, you pay the doctor. The is no system that can compete with that for simplicity and cost effectivness.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only possible way to reduce health care costs is to return to a free market health care system. No health insurance, no employee health coverage. You go to the doctor, the doctor examines you, you pay the doctor. The is no system that can compete with that for simplicity and cost effectivness.
I think this point has been brought up before, but insurance companies are an unavoidable byproduct of the free market system you advocate. Unless you're planning to explicitly prevent it (which would kind of go against the whole anti-government regulation thing you've got going) insurance companies will just pop up again because what's preventing things like: 1) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program because it's the consolidation of this kind of smaller initiative (IIRC) that led to the development of the largest health insurance companies anyway. So just out of curiosity - say for argument sake that you had the ability to do it - how would you ever make this happen?
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only possible way to reduce health care costs is to return to a free market health care system. No health insurance, no employee health coverage. You go to the doctor, the doctor examines you, you pay the doctor. The is no system that can compete with that for simplicity and cost effectivness.
I think this point has been brought up before, but insurance companies are an unavoidable byproduct of the free market system you advocate. Unless you're planning to explicitly prevent it (which would kind of go against the whole anti-government regulation thing you've got going) insurance companies will just pop up again because what's preventing things like: 1) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program because it's the consolidation of this kind of smaller initiative (IIRC) that led to the development of the largest health insurance companies anyway. So just out of curiosity - say for argument sake that you had the ability to do it - how would you ever make this happen?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program
And what could possibly be wrong with that? The problem with health insurance as a business entity separate from the actual doctors office is that it is an entire industry that takes health care money yet provides no actual health care. You are sustaining an entire industry that has executives and secretaries and CEO's etc, etc, all makeing very large salaries off of your health care dollars for the exclusive purpose of paying your doctor for you, plus themselves, of course. The only thing that health insurance pays for is the overhead of the health insurance industry itself. You pay out of pocket exactly what you would pay if the health insurance industry did not exist at all. And that will be precisely the same once the government replaces the health insurance industry, only worse because there will be no competition of any kind. If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service you would eliminate the bulk of the nonessential people invovled with managing the system. And that could be done extremly efficiently with a little well designed software. I don't see a downside to doing that. The market itself would determine the optimum rate.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only possible way to reduce health care costs is to return to a free market health care system. No health insurance, no employee health coverage. You go to the doctor, the doctor examines you, you pay the doctor. The is no system that can compete with that for simplicity and cost effectivness.
Yes. And no. "Health insurance" and "free market" are not inherently inimical.
Ilíon wrote:
"Health insurance" and "free market" are not inherently inimical.
I beleive they largly are. In fact, I think insurace as a concept is largely an anti-capitalistic scam and should be treated the way all ponsi schemes are treated.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program
And what could possibly be wrong with that? The problem with health insurance as a business entity separate from the actual doctors office is that it is an entire industry that takes health care money yet provides no actual health care. You are sustaining an entire industry that has executives and secretaries and CEO's etc, etc, all makeing very large salaries off of your health care dollars for the exclusive purpose of paying your doctor for you, plus themselves, of course. The only thing that health insurance pays for is the overhead of the health insurance industry itself. You pay out of pocket exactly what you would pay if the health insurance industry did not exist at all. And that will be precisely the same once the government replaces the health insurance industry, only worse because there will be no competition of any kind. If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service you would eliminate the bulk of the nonessential people invovled with managing the system. And that could be done extremly efficiently with a little well designed software. I don't see a downside to doing that. The market itself would determine the optimum rate.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service
That's how HMO's started. . . :rolleyes:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program
And what could possibly be wrong with that? The problem with health insurance as a business entity separate from the actual doctors office is that it is an entire industry that takes health care money yet provides no actual health care. You are sustaining an entire industry that has executives and secretaries and CEO's etc, etc, all makeing very large salaries off of your health care dollars for the exclusive purpose of paying your doctor for you, plus themselves, of course. The only thing that health insurance pays for is the overhead of the health insurance industry itself. You pay out of pocket exactly what you would pay if the health insurance industry did not exist at all. And that will be precisely the same once the government replaces the health insurance industry, only worse because there will be no competition of any kind. If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service you would eliminate the bulk of the nonessential people invovled with managing the system. And that could be done extremly efficiently with a little well designed software. I don't see a downside to doing that. The market itself would determine the optimum rate.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan, your take on health insurance is so far off the mark it makes Obama sound intelligient. Point in fact, unless you're as wealthy as Rush Limbaugh, without insurance you would recieve a death sentence the minute you had: a stroke, a heart attack, cancer or any number of other costly to treat conditions. anyone of the three I chose to list, and I can produce an exhaustive list, can run into millions of dollars to treat. That sort of cost can only be supported by individuals pooling money (the insurance model), the extremely wealthy or a single payor government program. Furthermore, insurance companies do precisely what you suggest on the part of providers - they organize doctors (and hospitals, which you neglected to mention) into networks and via those networks (using free market negotiating aproaches) push down, not raise costs. I could go on and explain that it isn't the insurance costs that make healthcare expensive (because it simply doesn't) but it is the uninsured that by law recieve unpaid treatment via emergency room care (forcing cost transfers to those who can pay) or the expense of sophisticated medical equipment and facilities that combine to make healthcare an expensive item it is in today's world.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
) a doctor accepting a flat fee per month as an agreement to treat whatever conditions may arise in the year 2) a bunch of doctors in different specialties accepting a flat fee per month as a group and they all agree to treat the patient population that enrolls in the program
And what could possibly be wrong with that? The problem with health insurance as a business entity separate from the actual doctors office is that it is an entire industry that takes health care money yet provides no actual health care. You are sustaining an entire industry that has executives and secretaries and CEO's etc, etc, all makeing very large salaries off of your health care dollars for the exclusive purpose of paying your doctor for you, plus themselves, of course. The only thing that health insurance pays for is the overhead of the health insurance industry itself. You pay out of pocket exactly what you would pay if the health insurance industry did not exist at all. And that will be precisely the same once the government replaces the health insurance industry, only worse because there will be no competition of any kind. If the doctors themselves had some sort of subscription service you would eliminate the bulk of the nonessential people invovled with managing the system. And that could be done extremly efficiently with a little well designed software. I don't see a downside to doing that. The market itself would determine the optimum rate.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And what could possibly be wrong with that?
Nothing except (as Oakman pointed out) that's exactly how modern health insurance companies started. Eventually, because it's more profitable and more cost effective, the handling of the money side of health care gets diverted to people who know how to handle the money waaaaay better than doctors do - or particularly want to. You think doctors generally want to be responsible for chasing down people who don't pay? That they want to spend hours and hours coming up with coverage guidelines and fee schedules? So how would you prevent the consolidation of those types of smaller services into larger ones? If you're going to argue that the free market would prevent it - well, the free market allowed this to happen already! What would be different this time around?
- F