NEPatriot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...care-cuts.html

How is Obama going to make the healthcare 'affordable' when he cuts 2T dollars?

I'm not sure what kind of effect elderly people will see in Medicare.

PatsFanInVa

Ah, NEP becomes once again The Accidental Liberal!

So you're now against cutting spending, I take it?

NEPatriot

He cuts 2 T healthcare fund so that he can have his universal health care plan. It's the way Obama forces people to use his plan.

Is it not obvious?

PatsFanInVa

What is obvious to you, NEP, is bizarrly contorted to the rational man.

Looks to me like he wants to trim $2 trillion from health costs over 10 years. Do you prefer more expensive medical care?

tanked_as_usual

simple.....eh will just make the dead pay for it

obama is an arseclown

NEPatriot

Do you know why it's EXPENSIVE in the first place? Because the healthcare industries set their own price at the expense of patients.

When Obama cuts 2T dollars, how is your care covered since obama doesn't pay for it?


The answer is YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN.

PatsFanInVa

[QUOTE=NEPatriot;1401167]Do you know why it's EXPENSIVE in the first place? Because the healthcare industries set their own price at the expense of patients.[quote]

Let's say that there are no ins and outs and facets and other mealy-mouthed problems to contend with. Let's say you have fully and accurately analyzed the problem.... "because healthcare industries set their own price at the expense of patients."

We have 2 problems for you, my now-Stalinist friend: You have pointed to a need to control the healthcare sector's pricing as the only control for health costs, but of course that's unintentional. (I.e., your beloved capitalist system has resulted in the healthcare industry charging to the point of unaffordability by a large part of society.)

The big problem, though, is that you have not in any way refuted control of medical costs.

So you basically say you know the cause. What if Obama agrees with you 100% on that cause?

Would you rather it be acted on in a way that solves the problem, or left alone as a problem that will not be solved? Do you, in fact, prefer the healthcare industry to serve only a few, and at enormous expense?

You have not refuted the need to contain said costs, you have only pointed out that they are a natural outgrowth of unregulated capitalism, and the necessary role of the public sector in the solution to the healthcare problem.

Are you confused about the subject of the article you posted?

Obama is seeking to cut $2T in costs over 10 years. That means that stuff that costs $X T right now will cost $(X-2) T by 10 years from now.

This is so that when health care reform comes, if we have to spend $X T on it, we get $X T in services, not $(X-2) T.

PFnV

NEPatriot

Let say that you are on medicare. How is Obama's cut going to improve your care when the cost of healthcare is still the same if not higher?

What you end up having is inadequate care or no care at all.



The cut always comes with a prize. When Obama cuts the funding, does it mean that the quality care is not as good as you wanted?

PatsFanInVa

Your story is about cutting the cost, so the cost is not the same, if he has cut $2T from those costs.

Out of all your sputterings today, this one is the funniest. You're now arguing for higher-cost health care, on the premise that higher costs are a good thing, even for the same care.

Fail.

PFnV

NEPatriot

Do you know how to read? I said that will the QUALITY CARE be the same if not better when you CUT the funding.

If you want to argue, stick to the point instead of spinning your way out of it.