View Full Version : Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
rickrock305
09-12-09, 17:03
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, at a cost of 1.2 trillion dollars over 10 years, passed by a republican controlled congress and signed into law by a republican president.
where was the outrage then? similar cost to the current plans, except under our current plans we actually get a lot more for our money.
oh by the way, this is the one Joe Wilson voted for.
just find the glaring hypocrisy interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act
Business_Casual
09-12-09, 17:09
Why is hypocrisy such a sin? Is it wrong for me to not give a child whiskey if I drink it? Is the sign that points to Toledo wrong for not going there?
This is a stupid argument against being against Obamacare. Please go try to train a bear to ride a unicycle or something.
M_P
rickrock305
09-12-09, 17:14
Why is hypocrisy such a sin? Is it wrong for me to not give a child whiskey if I drink it? Is the sign that points to Toledo wrong for not going there?
brilliant logic there... :D
hypocrisy is wrong because its dishonest.
This is a stupid argument against being against Obamacare. Please go try to train a bear to ride a unicycle or something.
M_P
again, BRILLIANT! i expected nothing less.
so why are you against Obama's health care plans, yet weren't against this? is it simply the letter has change from R to D? or is it something else? i'm just trying to find some explanation for it, its odd.
Derek_Connor
09-12-09, 17:29
Im not against overhaul, reform...
But what is the ****ing hurry? Why now? And why before the end of the year? Is it because the american people *really* need it? Or does the Obama administration just need to get a big 'ol WIN in their corner...
The haste to this situation suggests the later.
You have no rights to health care in this nation. If you cannot afford it, then you dont get it. You have the life, liberty and pursuit of personal wealth to OBTAIN/PAY FOR health care. Punishing small business for not subscribing to this new public health care, paying for non-citizen's health care, and the overall unnecessary SPEED to get this passed is just the tip of the iceberg w/me.
There are alot of military here...ad, reserve, retired, spouses etc. And I can gurantee there is an overwhelming majority that have had VA medical experiences that were less than ideal.
We do not need to drop the standard in health care to the LCD, while making it mandatory "option"
Who exactly are you accusing of hypocrisy? Find me posts here supporting Medicare D and posts by the same people in opposition to Obamacare and you might have something approaching substantiation of your claim. Unless of course your hypocrisy claim is directed at Joe Wilson, in which case I think you may be choosing the wrong venue as to my knowledge, he has not yet registered at M4C.
I was a hardcore Bush cheerleader back in '03 and I didn't support that legislation. Good call bringing it up though, as it highlights the government's propensity for underestimating actual costs of social programs. Prescription drug liability is currently around 8.5 trillion dollars.
John_Wayne777
09-12-09, 17:42
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, at a cost of 1.2 trillion dollars over 10 years, passed by a republican controlled congress and signed into law by a republican president.
where was the outrage then?
There was plenty of it...especially among those who couldn't figure out how a guy who claimed to be a conservative was proposing expanding an entitlement program that was bankrupting our society.
I often reminded folks that Bush was not a conservative...he was a self proclaimed "compassionate" conservative...which is why I voted for Allan Keyes in the primary.
just find the glaring hypocrisy interesting.
I find your inability to discern the potential differences between a stupid and costly expansion of medicare to cover prescription drugs with a stupid and costly attempt to fundamentally alter the entire healthcare system in the United States interesting.
Both are costly. One, however, was simply bloated and expensive. The other is an attempt to eliminate private healthcare in this country...and some of us aren't really on board with that. There's a big difference between a guy who put forward a program to pay for the prescription drugs of seniors (at the behest of Democrats, remember...) and a guy who says that he wants to enact a single payer healthcare system. One plan buys senior citizens pills. The other turns our healthcare system into Canada or the UK.
No thank you.
Business_Casual
09-12-09, 17:45
brilliant logic there... :D
hypocrisy is wrong because its dishonest.
again, BRILLIANT! i expected nothing less.
so why are you against Obama's health care plans, yet weren't against this? is it simply the letter has change from R to D? or is it something else? i'm just trying to find some explanation for it, its odd.
How do you know I wasn't against it? Regardless, to the point - there's a difference between paying for some old people's beta blockers and taking over 1/6 of the economy.
But, because you are so brilliant and I am so stupid, I don't expect that to sink in.
M_P
Why do you guys continue to argue with this troll? :confused:
He is only here to fight about politics. He has 1 post out of 187 that have anything to do with guns...:rolleyes:
Don't respond to him and he will go elsewhere to meddle.
parishioner
09-12-09, 17:50
where was the outrage then?
I would say that the act you are referring to is not nearly as invasive as the current proposal. The current bill would have a much greater ripple effect in the country. The deficit grew by $776.51 billion from January to June, and has already topped $1 trillion since the government's fiscal year started in October. The administration has said it expects the fiscal 2009 deficit to reach $1.75 trillion so I would say Was it smart to spend that much then? I don't think so but we were in a better period financially in 2003. So, no its not just a matter of the D or R on the bill.
parishioner
09-12-09, 17:58
I find your inability to discern the potential differences between a stupid and costly expansion of medicare to cover prescription drugs with a stupid and costly attempt to fundamentally alter the entire healthcare system in the United States interesting.
Both are costly. One, however, was simply bloated and expensive. The other is an attempt to eliminate private healthcare in this country...and some of us aren't really on board with that.
Seriously. End of argument. Rickrock is trying to equate the two bills. Go peddle your bull elsewhere.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 18:19
But what is the ****ing hurry? Why now? And why before the end of the year? Is it because the american people *really* need it? Or does the Obama administration just need to get a big 'ol WIN in their corner...
i think its both. we need it, and Obama is trying to get a win in his corner.
The haste to this situation suggests the later.
the haste has everything to do with politics. new presidents are most likely to pass their legislation within the first year of office.
You have no rights to health care in this nation. If you cannot afford it, then you dont get it. You have the life, liberty and pursuit of personal wealth to OBTAIN/PAY FOR health care. Punishing small business for not subscribing to this new public health care, paying for non-citizen's health care, and the overall unnecessary SPEED to get this passed is just the tip of the iceberg w/me.
but these things are happening under our current system. we are currently paying for non citizens' care, small businesses are being punished with ridiculous insurance premiums, etc.
We do not need to drop the standard in health care to the LCD, while making it mandatory "option"
the public option is not mandatory under current proposals.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 18:25
There was plenty of it...especially among those who couldn't figure out how a guy who claimed to be a conservative was proposing expanding an entitlement program that was bankrupting our society.
i certainly don't remember tea parties, protests, and outright violence over Bush's bill.
I find your inability to discern the potential differences between a stupid and costly expansion of medicare to cover prescription drugs with a stupid and costly attempt to fundamentally alter the entire healthcare system in the United States interesting.
Both are costly. One, however, was simply bloated and expensive. The other is an attempt to eliminate private healthcare in this country...and some of us aren't really on board with that. There's a big difference between a guy who put forward a program to pay for the prescription drugs of seniors (at the behest of Democrats, remember...) and a guy who says that he wants to enact a single payer healthcare system. One plan buys senior citizens pills. The other turns our healthcare system into Canada or the UK.
thats not entirely accurate. first, i'm not attempting to compare the two bills, because they accomplish different things. i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
i don't believe this bill is going to fundamentally alter the entire healthcare system, although this is a matter of opinion. if you're happy with what you have currently, thats fine and you can keep it under current proposals. private healthcare isn't going to go anywhere, there's too much money in it and they are heavily entrenched with elected officials. that means there will almost certainly be provisions for them in the final bill.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 18:27
I would say that the act you are referring to is not nearly as invasive as the current proposal. The current bill would have a much greater ripple effect in the country. The deficit grew by $776.51 billion from January to June, and has already topped $1 trillion since the government's fiscal year started in October. The administration has said it expects the fiscal 2009 deficit to reach $1.75 trillion so I would say Was it smart to spend that much then? I don't think so but we were in a better period financially in 2003. So, no its not just a matter of the D or R on the bill.
i don't disagree here. i think it is a really bad time to be spending even more money.
your numbers are a little off though, due to accounting trickery on the part of the government, keeping certain things off the books and such.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 18:28
Seriously. End of argument. Rickrock is trying to equate the two bills. Go peddle your bull elsewhere.
no, i'm trying to compare the reaction of politicians and the general public.
Why do you guys continue to argue with this troll? :confused:
He is only here to fight about politics. He has 1 post out of 187 that have anything to do with guns...:rolleyes:
Don't respond to him and he will go elsewhere to meddle.
i was thinking just that myself. a guy on a gun forum that only talks politics, its a trap RUN!!
i think its both. we need it, and Obama is trying to get a win in his corner.
Nope
the haste has everything to do with politics. new presidents are most likely to pass their legislation within the first year of office.
True and he knows he'll be out and so will the majority, people are blind no more
but these things are happening under our current system. we are currently paying for non citizens' care, small businesses are being punished with ridiculous insurance premiums, etc.
ok so should we make it worse?
the public option is not mandatory under current proposals.
False, just not worded this way
i certainly don't remember tea parties, protests, and outright violence over Bush's bill.
hmm me neither this is WAY different
thats not entirely accurate. first, i'm not attempting to compare the two bills, because they accomplish different things. i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
why? whats your purpose? this is a gun forum, we like to talk about these
i don't believe this bill is going to fundamentally alter the entire healthcare system, although this is a matter of opinion. if you're happy with what you have currently, thats fine and you can keep it under current proposals. private healthcare isn't going to go anywhere, there's too much money in it and they are heavily entrenched with elected officials. that means there will almost certainly be provisions for them in the final bill
Its not a matter of opinion, rather perception and my opinion is yours is wrong, and to qoute a great american "thank you for letting me keep whats mine", also this will destroy private healthcare wtf? never heard of deregulation? this is that basically no no frenchie? also it seams as though the insurance companies arent making as much as the drug companies eh?
i don't disagree here. i think it is a really bad time to be spending even more money.
then man up and write your congressman/woman
your numbers are a little off though, due to accounting trickery on the part of the government, keeping certain things off the books and such.
I dont recall anyone asking you to rate the membership here, we are what we are do you realize this is a gun forum?
no, i'm trying to compare the reaction of politicians and the general public.
good for you, take your results and leave please, dont let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!
burn?
i certainly don't remember tea parties, protests, and outright violence over Bush's bill.
One word: overreaching. And it started last year (under Bush) with TARP. Since then, there has been a huge acceleration in government spending and assertion of power. It has woken a lot of people up.
Easy on the drama with "outright violence". :rolleyes: Give me a break.
i don't believe this bill is going to fundamentally alter the entire healthcare system, although this is a matter of opinion. if you're happy with what you have currently, thats fine and you can keep it under current proposals. private healthcare isn't going to go anywhere, there's too much money in it and they are heavily entrenched with elected officials. that means there will almost certainly be provisions for them in the final bill.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Dr. Jacob Hacker (and many others) disagree with your stellar, purely superficial analysis. [un]Intended consequences can be a real bitch.
Easy on the drama with "outright violence". :rolleyes: Give me a break.
dang i meant to mention that laughable comment. i dont even want to know what "outright violence" he could be referring too.
parishioner
09-12-09, 18:57
first, i'm not attempting to compare the two bills, because they accomplish different things. i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy
no, i'm trying to compare the reaction of politicians and the general public
Well you cant compare the reaction of the bills unless you compare the two bills soooo.......
rickrock305
09-12-09, 19:15
One word: overreaching. And it started last year (under Bush) with TARP. Since then, there has been a huge acceleration in government spending and assertion of power. It has woken a lot of people up.
i hope so.
Easy on the drama with "outright violence". :rolleyes: Give me a break.
its a fact. there have been multiple assaults at these town hall meetings on healthcare
at a rally outside the Miami Chamber of Commerce where Senator Bill nelson was speaking yesterday. When a 65 year old man cheered for healthcare reform with his friends, fellow democratic activists and union members, another man took grave offense at the audacity he displayed. So, to silence his exercise of his 1st amendment right to peaceable assemble and speak freely this gentlemen took matters into his own hands. Or his fists, as it were:
"Luis Perrero of Coral Gables was standing among about 40 Democratic activists and union workers when a man in a Ford pick-up truck pulled up to the rally at Jungle Island and began arguing with the crowd," the Herald's Tolouse Oloronippa blogged Wednesday. "The man, who only gave his first name as Raul, said Perrero called him a Spanish curse word. He punched Perrero in the face. Perrero fell to the ground and lay motionless for a few minutes."
"I'm amazed the way this has become such a politicized issue,'' Perrero told Oloronippa. "It shows that people who are against the public option will resort to anything, including battery on a senior citizen to prevent healthcare reform.''
"It was totally uncalled for," Wilhelmina Ford, another public healthcare supporter quipped. "The guy may have had words with him but he didn't have to hit him in the face.''
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_re_us/us_finger_severed
Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Dr. Jacob Hacker (and many others) disagree with your stellar, purely superficial analysis. [un]Intended consequences can be a real bitch.
i'm well aware that plenty of people disagree. but my analysis is hardly superficial. i've been reading the bill, searching the bill, etc.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 19:15
Nope
you may be the first person i've seen to deny that we need health care reform in this country.
True and he knows he'll be out and so will the majority, people are blind no more
people are more blind than they've ever been.
ok so should we make it worse?
how will reform make these things worse?
False, just not worded this way
proof?
why? whats your purpose? this is a gun forum, we like to talk about these
my purpose is to discuss alternate points of view with others. apparently thats way too much for some to handle around here.
yea, its a gun forum. yet there are sections for fieldcraft, survival, emergency prep, and this one right here entitled General Discussion. If you want to discuss guns, there are plenty of subforums and other threads to do just that.
also this will destroy private healthcare wtf? never heard of deregulation? this is that basically no no frenchie?
no, its not deregulation at all. in fact its just the opposite. the republican plans being floated are much more centered around deregulation. and deregulation got us where we are now with the stock market, health care, politics, etc.
also it seams as though the insurance companies arent making as much as the drug companies eh?
actually no, insurance companies are making more than drug companies. and there are fewer of them.
I dont recall anyone asking you to rate the membership here, we are what we are do you realize this is a gun forum?
nobody is rating the membership. i was merely pointing out that his budget numbers were a little off due to accounting trickery on the part of the government.
dang i meant to mention that laughable comment. i dont even want to know what "outright violence" he could be referring too.
see above comment, then you can remove your foot from your mouth.
its a fact. there have been multiple assaults at these town hall meetings on healthcare
The dude that lost the finger lost it to a pro-Obamacare biter. There are idiots on both sides, but thus far on both sides they have been the exception and not the rule. Period.
i'm well aware that plenty of people disagree. but my analysis is hardly superficial. i've been reading the bill, searching the bill, etc.
The people I referenced are on the pro-Obamacare side. Hacker has been called the "architect" of healthcare reform.
Saying 'oh well the bill says private companies can still exist so that means you can keep what you have' ignores the market forces put into motion by things like a government option, taxes on non-union employer provided healthcare but not union based, etc. Couple that by the stated end goal of single payer through a path of incrementalism by the same people pushing this moderate "reform" (moderate relative to single payer anyways) and well, yeah, it seems superficial to me.
Schakowsky:
"And next to me was a guy from an insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete; that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business. My single payer friends, he was right. The man was right. Here’s what I told him. I said excuse me sir the goal of health care reform is not to protect the private health insurance industry. And, I am so confident in the superiority of a public health care option that I think he has every reason to be frightened.”
Hacker:
“Someone once said to me, ‘Well, this is a Trojan horse for single payer.’ I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there! I’m telling you!
...
We’re going to get there (to a government-run system)–over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employment-based health insurance, as we should.
...
But we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_re_us/us_finger_severed
This is obvious vilification of patriots by the left by way of hiring an illegal allien to attack a democrat to make republicans look ebil. Those guys at the home depot want to do construction work not hit jobs. But hey I guess its all green and its all going back home.
http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac189/MTphotodump/Pics/1251293620370.jpg
rickrock305
09-12-09, 19:37
The dude that lost the finger lost it to a pro-Obamacare biter. There are idiots on both sides, but thus far on both sides they have been the exception and not the rule. Period.
yes, they have been the exception. but there has been violence nonetheless.
The people I referenced are on the pro-Obamacare side. Hacker has been called the "architect" of healthcare reform.
i'm well aware of that.
Saying 'oh well the bill says private companies can still exist so that means you can keep what you have' ignores the market forces put into motion by things like a government option, taxes on non-union employer provided healthcare but not union based, etc. Couple that by the stated end goal of single payer through a path of incrementalism by the same people pushing this moderate "reform" (moderate relative to single payer anyways) and well, yeah, it seems superficial to me.
i think at the end of the day these market forces are going to be good for everyone, driving insurance premiums back down. will it cut into the bottom line for insurance companies? sure. but when they're making tens of billions of dollars a year, i think thats reasonable.
as for the union thing, thats a whole other discussion.
Schakowsky:
Quote:
"And next to me was a guy from an insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete; that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business. My single payer friends, he was right. The man was right. Here’s what I told him. I said excuse me sir the goal of health care reform is not to protect the private health insurance industry. And, I am so confident in the superiority of a public health care option that I think he has every reason to be frightened.”
well she's WAY more confident in the superiority of a public health option than the majority of people. use the VA as an example. is it a great system? absolutely not. but its better than nothing. and thats what this public health option is about, not about those that can afford to pay for their own care. they can and most likely will continue to do so due to better quality. but the public health option will be there for those who cannot afford private insurance.
hence, i don't believe the private insurance industry will be put out of business at all. thats a bit extreme.
John_Wayne777
09-12-09, 19:38
i certainly don't remember tea parties, protests, and outright violence over Bush's bill.
I remember lots of people stating that they were done with the Republican party after that bill, and citing it as one of the MANY reasons why the Bush administration sucked. The term RINO was used quite liberally.
As for no teaparties...well...again, Bush wasn't trying to completely socialize healthcare.
thats not entirely accurate. first, i'm not attempting to compare the two bills, because they accomplish different things. i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
You're attempting to draw an invalid comparison between reaction to a bill that was wasteful and stupid and reaction to a bill that aims to socialize healthcare. You're trying to compare apples and zebras.
i don't believe this bill is going to fundamentally alter the entire healthcare system,
Given that many of the proponents of the legislation say it will do exactly that, I'm puzzled as to how you can come to that conclusion. According to the statements of MANY leading proponents of a government option, it is a precursor to a complete single payer system.
Again...no thank you.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 19:39
http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac189/MTphotodump/Pics/1251293620370.jpg
i'm sorry your menial level of intelligence doesn't warrant you the ability to muster up a valid response.
i guess this is your way of trying to marginalize my opinion because you can't actually think of an intelligent one of your own. thats your problem, not mine.
http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt208/Negromoses/Troll.jpg
rickrock305
09-12-09, 19:43
I remember lots of people stating that they were done with the Republican party after that bill, and citing it as one of the MANY reasons why the Bush administration sucked. The term RINO was used quite liberally.
As for no teaparties...well...again, Bush wasn't trying to completely socialize healthcare.
You're attempting to draw an invalid comparison between reaction to a bill that was wasteful and stupid and reaction to a bill that aims to socialize healthcare. You're trying to compare apples and zebras. .
i think you are misunderstanding the meaning of socialism. i see that word thrown around a lot lately, and its really not accurate.
this health care bill is not socialism.
Given that many of the proponents of the legislation say it will do exactly that, I'm puzzled as to how you can come to that conclusion. According to the statements of MANY leading proponents of a government option, it is a precursor to a complete single payer system.
it could be construed as a precursor to a single payer system. but i don't think we will ever see that here in the states. the insurance companies are far too rich and powerful to let that happen.
John_Wayne777
09-12-09, 19:46
i'm sorry your menial level of intelligence doesn't warrant you the ability to muster up a valid response.
i guess this is your way of trying to marginalize my opinion because you can't actually think of an intelligent one of your own. thats your problem, not mine.
It's more than likely his way of describing your behavior as a self-styled agent provocateur on this forum.
John_Wayne777
09-12-09, 19:51
i think you are misunderstanding the meaning of socialism. i see that word thrown around a lot lately, and its really not accurate.
this health care bill is not socialism.
It is in fact socialism...whether you define "socialism" in purely economic terms or in political terms.
it could be construed as a precursor to a single payer system. but i don't think we will ever see that here in the states. the insurance companies are far too rich and powerful to let that happen.
The government systems ALREADY pay less than market cost for a number of procedures. Medicare and medicaid pay doctors and hospitals less than it costs them to provide a lot of treatment. Currently this difference is made up by people who have private insurance or who pay out of pocket.
When more people are put on a government plan that will do the same thing, the costs for private insurance will continue to escalate...and that will push more people to the "public option"...which will exacerbate the problem.
There is no entity more rich or more powerful than government.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 19:57
It's more than likely his way of describing your behavior as a self-styled agent provocateur on this forum.
i think its more than likely his lack of intelligence to form and articulate an opinion
John_Wayne777
09-12-09, 20:06
i think its more than likely his lack of intelligence to form and articulate an opinion
Continuing to opine about the "lack of intelligence" of another poster will not end well for you.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 20:11
It is in fact socialism...whether you define "socialism" in purely economic terms or in political terms.
my point exactly. socialism is an economic system, not a political one. it cannot be defined in political terms, because it is not a political system.
Socialism is defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.
That is not what this or any healthcare plan is aiming to do.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html
The government systems ALREADY pay less than market cost for a number of procedures. Medicare and medicaid pay doctors and hospitals less than it costs them to provide a lot of treatment. Currently this difference is made up by people who have private insurance or who pay out of pocket.
its a bit more complicated than that.
basically, Medicare/Medicaid started the practice of paying a discounted rate for medical procedures. Hospitals in turn simply raised the cost of everything. Thats why a Bandaid costs $10 at the hospital. They raised the cost of the products so that they still clear the same profit. Insurance companies have followed the lead of Medicare/Medicaid in this regard and do the same thing, basically telling hospitals how much they will pay.
When more people are put on a government plan that will do the same thing, the costs for private insurance will continue to escalate...and that will push more people to the "public option"...which will exacerbate the problem.
i believe these costs you speak of will be mitigated by several factors.
currently when uninsured people go to the hospital and are treated, they receive a bill which they may or may not pay. when they don't pay, this causes costs for everyone to be driven up. but if these uninsured people are now insured through the public option, this will give the hospitals much more chance at recouping the costs of treatment, meaning less transferred to everyone else's bill. it will also result in people seeking more preventative treatment like regular checkups which will decrease the amount of expensive and long term care, further driving down the cost of healthcare overall.
second, due to market forces of having a public option, the opposite will actually occur. private insurance costs will actually be driven down. its supply and demand. if there is another option that costs less than your product, demand for that product will be greater than yours. either you bring cost down, or raise quality. i believe the public option will be of less quality than private insurance, more red tape and hoops to jump through. this will cause the majority of those that can afford their healthcare to remain with the private insurance. the public option will allow those who cannot afford healthcare to receive coverage. and this will in turn lead to people going to the doctor for checkups more, being treated more, which in the long term will also mitigate costs by reducing the amount of long term coverage needed for serious illnesses.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 20:12
Continuing to opine about the "lack of intelligence" of another poster will not end well for you.
well he could prove me wrong and actually engage in the conversation instead of name calling and attacking me personally. so far i'm just calling it as i see it. what little he did try to contribute to the conversation was factually incorrect, and once called on it he resorted to childish name calling.
John_Wayne777
09-12-09, 20:30
my point exactly. socialism is an economic system, not a political one. it cannot be defined in political terms, because it is not a political system.
Economic systems are political systems. Political and economic systems come in degrees.
i believe these costs you speak of will be mitigated by several factors.
currently when uninsured people go to the hospital and are treated, they receive a bill which they may or may not pay. when they don't pay, this causes costs for everyone to be driven up.
Those who do not pay themselves are generally the beneficiaries of medicare/medicaid. Hospitals that give care to indigent patients receive some form of reimbursement from medicaid. Generally this does not cover costs.
but if these uninsured people are now insured through the public option, this will give the hospitals much more chance at recouping the costs of treatment, meaning less transferred to everyone else's bill.
No, it won't...as most who cannot/do not pay hospitals and doctors already try to get reimbursement from established state and federal programs designed to pay the bill for those who "can't".
second, due to market forces of having a public option, the opposite will actually occur. private insurance costs will actually be driven down. its supply and demand.
Medicare/medicaid have not driven costs down.
i believe the public option will be of less quality than private insurance, more red tape and hoops to jump through. this will cause the majority of those that can afford their healthcare to remain with the private insurance.
The majority of people who have private insurance have it through their employer...who, when faced with hard economic times, would be very tempted to dump them into the public system.
the public option will allow those who cannot afford healthcare to receive coverage.
People who need care already get it whether they have insurance or not...whether they can pay or not...and that's why our system is in such disarray. Lots of people aren't picking up the tab for their care.
John_Wayne777
09-12-09, 20:31
so far i'm just calling it as i see it.
Leave the "calling" to the guys with the "moderator" and "staff" titles, please.
When you open a thread with the accusation of hypocrisy don't be surprised when a bit of that attitude splashes back on you.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 20:40
Economic systems are political systems. Political and economic systems come in degrees.
no. political systems and economic systems are wholly different. although they can effect each other.
Those who do not pay themselves are generally the beneficiaries of medicare/medicaid. Hospitals that give care to indigent patients receive some form of reimbursement from medicaid. Generally this does not cover costs.
it does actually cover the costs, just not the overinflated costs that are on paper.
No, it won't...as most who cannot/do not pay hospitals and doctors already try to get reimbursement from established state and federal programs designed to pay the bill for those who "can't".
try is the key word here.
Medicare/medicaid have not driven costs down.
this is also due to what i explained before. insurance companies adopting the practice of paying what they think something is worth, not what hospitals/doctors are charging.
The majority of people who have private insurance have it through their employer...who, when faced with hard economic times, would be very tempted to dump them into the public system.
i believe the healthcare proposal should have some provisions to protect against this.
People who need care already get it whether they have insurance or not...whether they can pay or not...and that's why our system is in such disarray. Lots of people aren't picking up the tab for their care.
this is not true at all. there are stories everywhere of people NOT getting care they need, insured or not.
rickrock305
09-12-09, 20:42
Leave the "calling" to the guys with the "moderator" and "staff" titles, please.
When you open a thread with the accusation of hypocrisy don't be surprised when a bit of that attitude splashes back on you.
the double standard is laughable.
so its ok for someone to call me a troll, yet i get admonished for calling him unintelligent? :D
just like the moderator that told me no personal attacks are allowed either right?
guess it just depends on what you agree with or not.
I did offer a response, and your rebuttal led me to believe you read nothing I posted. Therefore in my opinion you were trolling, your behavior, then you replied with. "i'm sorry your menial level of intelligence doesn't warrant you the ability to muster up a valid response. i guess this is your way of trying to marginalize my opinion because you can't actually think of an intelligent one of your own. thats your problem, not mine. " So basically you said I'm retarded cuz my reply didnt allow you pick me apart and make yourself look good?
tune in next week this same bat time this same bat channel where tinman44 will be posting another trolling picture to ward off the trolls
rickrock305
09-12-09, 21:03
I did offer a response, and your rebuttal led me to believe you read nothing I posted. Therefore in my opinion you were trolling, your behavior, then you replied with. "i'm sorry your menial level of intelligence doesn't warrant you the ability to muster up a valid response. i guess this is your way of trying to marginalize my opinion because you can't actually think of an intelligent one of your own. thats your problem, not mine. " So basically you said I'm retarded cuz my reply didnt allow you pick me apart and make yourself look good?
tune in next week this same bat time this same bat channel where tinman44 will be posting another trolling picture to ward off the trolls
no, i didn't call you retarded. i did pick your response apart, including pointing out several factual inaccuracies.
Insurance companies NEGOTIATE rates that they will pay for medical services. If they refuse to pay enough, medical providers won't take their insurance, and they will lose business. It's not a one-sided transaction.
ALL business to business transactions operate in the same manner. I have no idea what Rickrock305 does for a living, but he has no idea how business transactions are conducted. Everything is negotiated - and if asking price is accepted, someone on the purchasing side isn't doing his/her job. That's just a simple fact.
The problem with single payer systems is they can arbitrarily set an unrealistic reimbursement level, and EVERYONE has to take it, regardless of whether or not it covers costs. When this happens with Medicare, doctors charge more to non-Medicare patients, or they add extra services that they know Medicare will pay for (or pay too much for) to compensate.
As we have stated many times before, the problem with our system is that everyone wants unlimited medical care for a nominal premium and copay, and they expect someone else to pick up the tab. The ONLY solution is to introduce rational market reforms to the system such that an individual considers the cost/benefit of a medical service before agreeing to have it done. And the only way to do this is with high deductible plans and tax free medical savings accounts that force consumers to pay out of pocket for all routine care until the deductible is reached.
Such a system will require medical providers to be compelled to provide binding price quotes in advance of services, and that all further services or consults with other doctors be approved by the patient with full pricing information before they are performed.
But NONE of the proposed plans reflect any of this. Obama spoke the other night saying that insurance companies would be required to end lifetime maximums, end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, limit out-of-pocket expense, and cover mandatory services. This is guaranteed to RAISE insurance premiums for EVERYONE because costs will go up. Yet Obama stood there and LIED to the American public, claiming their costs would go down. This is an absolute paradox.
Insurance companies NEGOTIATE rates that they will pay for medical services. If they refuse to pay enough, medical providers won't take their insurance, and they will lose business. It's not a one-sided transaction.
ALL business to business transactions operate in the same manner. I have no idea what Rickrock305 does for a living, but he has no idea how business transactions are conducted. Everything is negotiated - and if asking price is accepted, someone on the purchasing side isn't doing his/her job. That's just a simple fact.
The problem with single payer systems is they can arbitrarily set an unrealistic reimbursement level, and EVERYONE has to take it, regardless of whether or not it covers costs. When this happens with Medicare, doctors charge more to non-Medicare patients, or they add extra services that they know Medicare will pay for (or pay too much for) to compensate.
As we have stated many times before, the problem with our system is that everyone wants unlimited medical care for a nominal premium and copay, and they expect someone else to pick up the tab. The ONLY solution is to introduce rational market reforms to the system such that an individual considers the cost/benefit of a medical service before agreeing to have it done. And the only way to do this is with high deductible plans and tax free medical savings accounts that force consumers to pay out of pocket for all routine care until the deductible is reached.
Such a system will require medical providers to be compelled to provide binding price quotes in advance of services, and that all further services or consults with other doctors be approved by the patient with full pricing information before they are performed.
But NONE of the proposed plans reflect any of this. Obama spoke the other night saying that insurance companies would be required to end lifetime maximums, end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, limit out-of-pocket expense, and cover mandatory services. This is guaranteed to RAISE insurance premiums for EVERYONE because costs will go up. Yet Obama stood there and LIED to the American public, claiming their costs would go down. This is an absolute paradox.
Don't forget adding to the demand side of the equation with the nebulous number of "uninsured" that they are trying to add coverage for (something in the tens of millions of people range) without increasing anything on the supply side (doctors, hospitals, etc) and expecting costs to go down somehow.
LockenLoad
09-13-09, 09:10
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, at a cost of 1.2 trillion dollars over 10 years, passed by a republican controlled congress and signed into law by a republican president.
where was the outrage then? similar cost to the current plans, except under our current plans we actually get a lot more for our money.
oh by the way, this is the one Joe Wilson voted for.
just find the glaring hypocrisy interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act
for one people already pay into medicare, check your pay check, so if you pay for something you should get it see social security, all U.S. citizens pay into both of these if they have a job, maybe if we stop giving money to people who should not be here that would help, like SS for boat people who never contributed a dime, 80% of babies born in Houston general are to illegal aliens, so most of these bums get free healthcare already, look at California it's bankrupt paying people with IOU's, should we be apothetic and let these thieves and criminals bankrupt our whole country? Just think of the jobs that would be left for legit americans, wages would go up, state and federal goverments would both save money, less bums to take care of. Go to Laredo Texas and talk to some of those people and see if thats how you want to live.
Gutshot John
09-13-09, 09:54
As I recall there was plenty of outrage over Medicare Part B. That's among the reasons why you had conservatives voting against the GOP in the last two elections.
I disagreed with Bush on most of his domestic policies. Obamacare however is a freakin disaster in the making.
Democrats don't give a rip about the "uninsured" they're simply using them as a rhetorical bludgeon in an effort to create a new government bureaucracy.
I oppose current legislation because it cannot do what is promised (providing cheap, quality healthcare to everyone is a flatout lie) and will not reduce costs. So in short the Democratic premise is a fabrication.
Americans oppose this effort because they know they're being lied to. The issue is one of economics, meaning health care costs have gone up as demand has increased and supply has dropped. Either the Dems are correct or everything I learned in economics was wrong. The Democratic plan CANNOT do what they're promising.
The Democrats would do far better if they'd focus more on the substance of the debate rather than rhetorical posturing and demagoguery.
I agree with Gutshot John.
Where is the call for the AMA to open up medical school admissions so we can educate more doctors in the USA? Why aren't new medical schools being built/opened to meet the demand for new doctors? Shouldn't congress have dedicated some of the stimulus bill funding to the establishment of new medical schools or expanded programs?
Rather than lamenting that lack of doctors going into primary care, what is anyone proposing to do about it? Should we limit the number of specialist residencies to drive more doctors into primary care? I don't really like that idea because it limits freedom of choice for the doctors, but what else could be done?
Maybe it's in the bill, but I haven't seen any talk of this, and following John's points about economics, prices will continue to go up if the supply of doctors does not increase when we increase the number of people on the insurance rolls.
The Social Security/Medicare problem will be taken care of with a simple act of Congress in a few years. They will raise the tax from 7.65% to 10% or more to keep the system solvent for a couple more administrations, but that's all they will do. It's the same thing they did 25 years ago to "fix" the system, so I don't see Congress having the guts to do what is needed. They will just punt it into the future...
Gutshot John
09-13-09, 10:38
Rather than lamenting that lack of doctors going into primary care, what is anyone proposing to do about it?
You start with Tort Reform which most experts agree is about half the cost involved through health insurance premiums and defensive medicine. This is something the Democrats have refused to consider and something the American people really want so it begs the question... 'are they really serious about reform, or is it just posturing in order to install socialist institutions in our government?'
Had Obama in his speech said. "In an effort to show my good faith to the loyal opposition, tort reform is back on the table" he'd have gone a long way towards an actual reform of the current issues of health care and literally would have been "reaching across the aisle".
He couldn't do even that.
Business_Casual
09-13-09, 11:56
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I agree with GutshotJohn.
Also, introduce (or remove the restriction) inter-state insurance competition. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to buy a policy from Alaska, or Bora Bora, for that matter.
M_P
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I agree with GutshotJohn.
Also, introduce (or remove the restriction) inter-state insurance competition. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to buy a policy from Alaska, or Bora Bora, for that matter.
M_P
The problem is insurance has historically been regulated at the state level. Allowing inter-state insurance purchasing would probably result in a lawsuit over states rights. It would probably be appealed up to SCOTUS who would then have to invoke the commerce clause to uphold the law. Is that really the direction we want to go? If so, it will make it easier for the feds to enact coverage mandates and other things that will affect everyone. This could be a back door to federal control, even if we shoot down the existing bills.
Are we against excessively broad applications of the commerce clause to regulate guns (and just about everything else), but we are for it with regard to health insurance? Kind of a slippery slope there.
How about we let the STATES fix their problems? If state regulation restricts competition so that only 1 or 2 insurance companies are dominant, why don't THEY fix THEIR problem? Seems a lot simpler than asking the feds to come up with a one-size-fits-all-states solution.
Gutshot John
09-13-09, 12:29
Are we against excessively broad applications of the commerce clause to regulate guns (and just about everything else), but we are for it with regard to health insurance? Kind of a slippery slope there.
Except inter-state insurance is by definition commerce and certainly falls under the commerce clause since people would be purchasing a service across state lines.
The issue with the commerce clause and firearms' bans is that it has very little, if nothing, to do with commerce.
That slippery slope already began to roll with Wickard v. Filburn. Since then the Rehnquist court slowed it down by saying that the commerce clause must be "substantially inside the stream of commerce". Inter-state purchase of health insurance fits that criteria.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.