Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by apple strudel, Aug 13, 2009.
And so much for rationing:
Whistle-blower: Health care industry engaging in PR tactics - CNN.com
one could say the same thing about obama scare tactics.........if it was all that, it would sell itself
It was only a matter of time before my biggest admirer showed up.
continuing juvenile tactics..........you lack orginality
What are the scare tactics you're referring to? There are many specific scare tactics by the right, such as death panels, taking away your insurance, the government choosing your doctor, fewer Medicare benefits, fewer VA benefits, etc.
Can you post a few examples of Obama's scare tactics so I know what you're referring to?
Please answer me one question. The administration( bill in Congress)talks about saving $500 billion dollars from Medicare. If you're saving money by not spending money that you anticipate spending, how is that not cutting benefits????
House Democrats Say CBO Projects $500 Billion in Gross Savings From Medicare
A quote from Obama:
â€śIf we donâ€™t get health care done now, then no oneâ€™s health insurance is going to be secure. Youâ€™re going to continue to see premiums going up at astronomical rates, out of pocket costs going up at astronomical rates, and people who lose their jobs. . . finding themselves in a situation where they cannot get health care.â€ť"
Sounds like scare tactics to me. Get my plan passed now or else. Sounds like the stimulus bill. "America's economy will never recover unless you pass the Stimulus bill right now". "America is facing the great recession in its history." He is basically putting forth his opinions as facts with nothing to back is up. That's trying to scare people into gettng what you want done without proving what you say.
How can scare tactics be based on the facts of the last few years?
1) Premiums have been going up and continue to do so. Fact.
2) People who lose their jobs do find themselves in the position where they can be refused health insurance. Fact.
In fact, even Lance Armstrong was denied coverage for his cancer treatment because he switched plans and the new one claimed it was a pre-existing condition. He only eventually got it because the CEO of one of his sponsors strong-armed their insurance provider to get Lance on their plan.
At least part of their thinking is as follows: By standardizing paperwork and systems, you'll massively reduce administrative costs; by having more info online (available to doctors with patient's consent), you'll reduce duplicate tests and duplicate efforts; and by providing more preventative care and counseling you'll reduce other costs. Here's a good example of the latter. Many older people want to die at home, but end up dying in hospitals because they are in no position to object. They are put on life support and kept that way sometimes for weeks or longer, at tremendous economic and emotional cost. But, if they were given the opportunity to specify a health care proxy and state their end of life wishes, it would be better for everyone.
do you have any clue as to the administration costs as they are now?
if the government cannot maintain the solvency of something much simpler such as social security, what makes anyone think that the government can create a solvent health care system, and when has the government ever simplified anything? these are all fallacies by the sales people of the plan
That's a fair enough example, except for the fact that there seems to be wide spread consensus that we need to make changes to our health care system. And given the fact that we spend twice as much per capita as any equally good health care system, it's clear we are wasting a lot of money. But, I do agree that Obama's wording is dire, and I don't know the degree to which it's accurate.
The only reason the government has trouble with solvency of these programs is 25 years of Reaganism brought about tax cuts and big spending. We need to raise taxes so that we can pay for things, but the American electorate seems to like the idea of getting something for nothing. I think Obama will raise taxes on the wealthy in order to bring our budget deficit under control.
And, by the way, Medicare and Social Security work extremely well, and are far simpler to deal with than any private insurances, especially from an administrative point of view.
Another useless post.
Simple. We already spend far too much on private healthcare, and the savings will be through reform of this industry (ie elimination of greed and corruption). And that's why it's called "Healthcare Reform".
like all the ones you make?
taxes are already too high........simple fact is that the government will always attempt to spend more than it takes......
BTW, the big spending came at the hand of a liberal house and senate......learn how government works
your reality is 'create whatever spending that I want, and then raise taxes until they are paid for' ....... does not work....period
Very much like the corporate model, our model for our politicians is also very self-defeating. Congressmen look for new money to spend in order to get re-elected. The more you do for your district and/or the nation, the more well known you become.
When will people get honest and realize our gov't ALREADY spends enough? It's just a matter of moving money around, not adding more money or tax revenues.
Cut military spending in half is a good place to start.
This idea brings a smile to my face.
Can you name me another type of 'reform' that has generated savings of this magnitude? While elimination of paperwork sounds good, the introduction of electronic records is by no means guaranteed to save money and in fact may cost more when you factor in privacy concerns such as HIPAA and identity theft protections....
Good luck making that happen.
we'd still be outspending everyone else on earth....
Like we do with healthcare...
we have the greatest military on earth because we pay through the nose for it.
we have the 39th bets heathcare system yet pay twice as much as the next highest country.
Military is run by the government
Health Insurance is a private biz
Even another useless post.
We have to take responsibility for the situation we are currently in. I don't think we have to get the deficit down to zero, but we need to raise taxes in order to make the deficit more manageable. I don't like the way conservatives shirk responsibility for our debts. It does not matter if our deficit was created by Reagan, Bush, or Obama, but we need to pay for it.
The federal budget is submitted by the President, and if you know anything of American history you know that the President always gets most of what he wants. Also, that excuse really doesn't work at all for Bush who had Republican Congresses for much of his term.
No, I'm all for cutting spending, but whether we cut spending or not, we still have to be fiscally prudent. And talk about unworkable, this is essentially what your saying, "We have to cut spending, because I refuse to pay my debts." Right or wrong, the debts are already accumulated through Democratic and Republican administrations, and like it or not we have responsibility to deal with it. If Obama is to spend, he has to raise taxes. Reagan and Bush both spent like crazy and cut taxes. That was fiscally unsound and childish dreaming.
I am not speaking of reducing paperwork; and I doubt paperwork could come close to adding up to $500 billion.
To make sure we understand, this is $500b over 10 years. And if it's done right, it can be $500b or better in each succeeding decade.
But I am talking about the private healthcare industry excessively lining their pockets with our hard earned money to impress Wall St, and in some cases, the hard earned money of the companies we work for, making it harder for them to avoid lay-offs, or at the least, reducing their share of the costs. It costs Americans far more for healthcare than any other country in the world, yet we rank only 39th in healthcare. Just reducing our costs to match the next highest country alone would more than account for $500b over 10 years.
In any case, the reform is something that needs to be done regardless of whether any money gets saved.
That is a FACT per survey. (link) My emphasis added.
but that is not what has been claimed, especially by the President. to paraphrase, we can cut down the paperwork and save $500 billion and I'm claiming that that is bunk...
It's unlikely that any savings by technology will flow to patients and not $2500 per family per year as claimed by the President.
When you said administrative, I was thinking of the provider, not the insured. You are correct that it is satisfactory to the insured, but not to the provider who must cut through mazes of paperwork with Medicare that doesn't exist with private plans. In that respect, as a FACT it explains why many providers opt out of Medicare and sign the contract that they won't bill Medicare for 2 years. If it was so satisfactory, they wouldn't take that approach.
How Medicare Paperwork Abuses Doctors and Harms Patients
Medicare Paperwork Hassles | OB/GYN News | Find Articles at BNET
"Hospital staff spends at least 30 minutes on paperwork for every hour of care provided to a typical Medicare patient, a study from the American Hospital Association said."
Separate names with a comma.