Obama Healthcare Speech

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<blockquote>Inglewood is a really a Third World Country</blockquote>


Not sure about you but I grew up on the westside.

And yes. Inglewood has become a 3rd world and so has the area around my house in Culver City.

Sepulveda/Sawtelle.

Its not safe in the least to walk in the evenings. Crime and Poverty have become a way of life.

We are very insulated here behind the Orange Curtain.



Nude some of the numbers your throwing out I think you should link. In looking them up they seem a little dubious at best.



And yes. Part of being a good "Tree Hugger" ( Me ) Is hand grenading your conservative brothers.

You hand them the grenade. Pull the pin. And watch them explode as soon as you try to have a civil discourse

on a political subject. They always become inraged. Why is that ?



I too would support the new bill. And I agree with you it has NO CHANCE. I still want the Public Option.

And to do away with the Health Insurance Companies. They are like Pimps. They do nothing but take the money.

Then pretend they are protecting you. Its laughable.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1253157039]Nude some of the numbers your throwing out I think you should link. In looking them up they seem a little dubious at best.</blockquote>


Certainly, just tell me which numbers you are referring to and I will dig up the source.
 
True Cost of the war in Iraq vs Medicare costs.



The projected costs of Iraq could be as high as 2 Trillion when you factor in the future

costs of Veteran Healthcare for the next couple of decades.



"A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far".



And this link is 3 years old. Lets shoot for 3 Trillion.

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html">http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html</a>



And this is more important than available Healthcare for all Americans ? I still wonder why we continue this stupidity in Iraq.



To avenge our dead ? To find those weapons ? Hope Sunni and Shia can find peace after 1400 years of fighting ?
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253153627]As for the camps, the were *run by the government* as part of a not-so-secret eugenics program that provided the means to accomplish the real goal of genocide. You equated opposition to Obamacare as the first step to death camps, the implication being that health care denied is tantamount to mass gas chambers, which is patently absurd considering it is HR3200 that seeks to limit end-of-life care by creating a dollar spent/usable life ratio. Which sounds more like the first step toward support for death camps to deal with sick people, keeping government from controlling the treatment of patients or telling grandma to forget about the pacemaker and take a pain pill?</blockquote>


Nude, were you in DC a couple of days ago???



<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2429/3912796473_4b8a77dd02.jpg" alt="" />
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1253158257]True Cost of the war in Iraq vs Medicare costs.</blockquote>
I got the projected spending for the DoD, including a breakout for the wars, from the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_department_defense/">White House's OMB</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-7">Wikipedia page breaking down the costs per year</a>. I got the costs of Medicare and Medicaid from <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/afr/2008sectionii-fs.pdf">the FY2008 report (page 43)</a>.

<blockquote>The projected costs of Iraq could be as high as 2 Trillion when you factor in the future

costs of Veteran Healthcare for the next couple of decades.



"A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far".



And this link is 3 years old. Lets shoot for 3 Trillion.

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html">http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html</a></blockquote>


Again, you are distorting things to fit your conclusions... from your own link:



<blockquote>...



The economists also used government data from past wars, and <span style="color: red;">included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq</span>. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war.



...</blockquote>


What Stiglitz failed to do was break out the "true costs" by category, meaning we don't know how much was attributed to health care and how much was attributed to nebulous sectors like "greater global insecurity", whatever that means. And then you randomly decide to add a trillion dollars to the tab without one iota of supporting evidence.



Facts, facts, facts. If you have them, source them, link them, use them. If you don't, then preface your posts with "IMO", or "I think", or even "My understanding is". Otherwise you are inviting the kind of ridicule you have been dishing out to others.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1253160877]Nude, were you in DC a couple of days ago???



<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2429/3912796473_4b8a77dd02.jpg" alt="" /></blockquote>


No. I don't mind protesters, but I find it personally repugnant when people try to vilify others with a swastika or some other Nazi reference. It's like Carter claiming opposition to Obama is based in racism; the point isn't to expand discussion, but to silence dissent. I don't think a free country is best served by trying to silence dissent. In the case of those in D.C., they were trying to silence those supporting Universal Health Care by equating them with supporters of eugenic programs run in Germany. I think they are just as nutty as Carter.



Both sides have their nutters, I just try to keep threads from being Godwin'd if possible.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253160998]

Facts, facts, facts. If you have them, source them, link them, use them. If you don't, then preface your posts with "IMO", or "I think", or even "My understanding is". Otherwise you are inviting the kind of ridicule you have been dishing out to others.</blockquote>
My stomach feels that Universal Donut Care is a better use of my tax dollars.



(sorry... I like to break up the angst sometimes)
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1253162507]My stomach feels that Universal Donut Care is a better use of my tax dollars.</blockquote>


I'm going to push for "Universal Beef Roast Care", featuring preventative Pressed Garlic care, early Worcestershire Sauce screening, Red Wine and Liquid Mesquite Smoke coverage for those with dependents, and the usual Sea Salt, Pepper, and a Cup of Water included at all levels. I figure, with an initial browning, after 6 hours on a low heat, we should be able to cover 100% of the people without beef roast... at least in my house ;)
 
Its great when we all agree.

Good Roast Beef is a RIGHT !



<img src="http://www.charbroil.com/bps/Char-Broil/Char-Broil/RecipeImages/PrimeRibDoneWEB.JPG" alt="" />
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1253161569][quote author="green_cactus" date=1253160877]Nude, were you in DC a couple of days ago???



</blockquote>


No. I don't mind protesters, but I find it personally repugnant when people try to vilify others with a swastika or some other Nazi reference. It's like Carter claiming opposition to Obama is based in racism; the point isn't to expand discussion, but to silence dissent. I don't think a free country is best served by trying to silence dissent. In the case of those in D.C., they were trying to silence those supporting Universal Health Care by equating them with supporters of eugenic programs run in Germany. I think they are just as nutty as Carter.



Both sides have their nutters, I just try to keep threads from being Godwin'd if possible.</blockquote>


I don't think all of the opposition to Obama is racist in nature but some of it definitely is. The birthers, the people who claim he is a "Muslim", and those who claim that he is a "terrorist" are clearly driven by a not so legitimate agenda. Listen to Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh and you will hear them make numerous and repeated thinly-veiled (and sometimes not so thin) racists remarks at the President (including the claim that the President is racist against white people). They are "fringe" but are also the loudest and have drowned any messages that the moderates may be trying to convey.



I also want to hear what the UHS opponents have as for alternatives to the widely recognized problems relating to health care and costs?
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1253164539]I also want to hear what the UHS opponents have as for alternatives to the widely recognized problems relating to health care and costs?</blockquote>


Funny... I covered that in the fourth post on this thread.



[quote author="Nude" date=1252651814]

We could cover the people who can't afford it for far less than we are projected to spend under the Democrat's plan. We could address the portability and competition issues by making health insurance nationally available rather than state by state, in the process delinking coverage from employment compensation packages. We can mandate that pre-existing conditions carry no more than a 10% premium to normal policies and coverage cannot be denied. We can require that everyone purchase some form of insurance from a national pool offered by the private insurance companies. We can add health insurance payments to unemployment benefits or set up some other system to cope with the unemployed needing coverage. We can establish a baseline for public purchase of private insurance for the small number that want it, but can't get it.</blockquote>


Basically, Max Baucus' <a href="http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG 2009/091609 Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf">health care bill</a>.
 
No_Vas, you have a PM.



It appears that it is NOT possible to buy direct an individual health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, however there are loopholes that can be exploited to achieve the desired result. So, I was wrong... sorta.
 
I heard a simple explination on Healthcare this morning.

Note: The only real government controlled health care is the VA. Its is government owned and operated.



But lets say for the sake of argument. Most hospitals and Doctors are not owned by any insurance companies.

The exception would be Kaiser and a few others.



So basically the huge insurance business is nothing more than a "Bank". They hold the money

that should be used to spread the risk. Thats what insurance is supposed to do. And make a resonable profit.



But for some reason in this country. And in this country only. We have allowed that "Bank" to essentially

extort whatever it wants from both the Doctors and Hospitals by making getting paid as hard as possible.

And to extort us patients. By raising the rates and to deny coverage anywhere they can. Making sure they make as much money as possible by playing the system to their benefit. What a scam.



Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation



Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834

Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777

Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823

Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230

Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557

U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529

WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271

L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169



Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation



Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112

Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740

Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469

Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355

Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309

U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042

Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212



"Administrative cost may be the healthcare industry's dirty little secret. Remarkably little research details the real cost of maintaining the American healthcare delivery system. If the best data available is accurate, healthcare administrative expense could be approaching $1 trillion annually".



"A California report from the Journal ?Health Studies,? found that a third of healthcare dollars goes to support an administrative bureaucracy. The California estimate tends to confirm the findings of two other major independent investigations. Doctors from the Harvard University Medical School found a 300 percent higher administrative cost structure in the U.S. when contrasting similar costs with Canadian data. A wider analysis, by researchers from Johns Hopkins University, compared U.S. costs with those of six similar OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries and calculated that the U.S. spends an average 256 percent more on administration.



The McKinsey Global Institute attributes 85 percent of this overhead differential to the highly complex private, U.S. health insurance system. Product design, underwriting, and marketing costs are responsible for 2/3 of overhead costs while more publicly supervised programs cost much less"



All this money or administrative costs have NOTHING to do with the quality of our helthcare. It has to do with how much the "Bank" or "Insurance Companies" can scam us for.



The Insurance companies are spending Huge Sums to support their scam.



<img src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2009/09/08/news/economy/health_care_lobbying/chart_lobby_pie.03.gif" alt="" />
 
More "Health Care Mythology"

by Clifford Asness, Ph.D.



Myth #3 Socialized Medicine Works In Some Places

This is a corollary to the ?Canada as parasite? parable above. The funny part is socialized

medicine has never been truly tested. Those touting socialism?s success have never seen a world

without a relatively (for now) free US to make or pay for their new drugs, surgical techniques,

and other medical advancements for them. When (and I hope this doesn?t happen) the US joins

in the insanity of socialized medicine we will see that when you remove the brain from the body,

the engine from a car, the candy from the striper, it just does not work.

So, please, stop pointing to all those ?successes? that even while living off the US still kill hard-

working people who could afford their own health care while they stand in line for the

government?s version (people?s cancers growing while waiting ten weeks for a routine scan,

which these people could often afford on their own if allowed, is a human tragedy). Even the

successes you gin up for them would not be possible without the last best hope of humankind

(the US) on the front lines again making the miracles for the world.

Specifically, let?s also stop citing the Nordic countries as examples. The temporary success of

(comparatively speaking) twelve herring-eating homogenous people is not an example that

applies to anything outside of perhaps Minnesota, and they elected Stuart Smalley, so under any

system they need serious free anti-psychotic medication immediately. Anyway, the Nordic

country?s touted ?success? is going to go the way of the Soviet Union?s plan to bury us, as their

changing demographics (far more economic and social diversity and an aging population) change

their culture and show the cracks in their utopian fantasy. As Milton Friedman (paraphrasing)

said to a Swede bragging about how little poverty there was in his country "well, yes, I too have

observed that among Swedes in America, there's also very little poverty."8

To put it simply, right now the US?s free system massively intellectually and financially

subsidizes the world?s unfree (socialized) ones. That sucks. The only thing that would suck

worse is joining them without anyone to subsidize us all.



5

Canada's national healthcare does not cover all prescription drugs, just those prescribed in hospitals and drugs for

poor people. But it imposes price controls and uses bulk purchase negotiations, and it recognizes less patent

protection than US law. The net result is drug companies recover much less of their fixed costs per person in

Canada than in the US. If the US imitated Canadian health policy, rewards for medical innovation would be much

less.

6

Truth be told this isn?t about just Canada but any group that negotiates en masse for prices that cover variable not

fixed costs. But the general point is still valid. The success of some groups at this does not mean it?s a viable

system for all, in fact it?s impossible to be a viable system for all. We cannot all be free riders.

7

The true subsidy of the US does not result only from US companies producing most of the drugs, but free people in

the US paying full price for drugs produced the world over.
 
<blockquote>I heard a simple explination on Healthcare this morning.

Note: The only real government controlled health care is the VA. Its is government owned and operated.



But <em>lets say for the sake of argument</em>. Most hospitals and Doctors are not owned by any insurance companies.

The <em>exception would be Kaiser and a few others</em>.



So basically the huge insurance business is nothing more than a ?Bank?. They hold the money

that should be used to spread the risk. Thats what insurance is supposed to do. And make a resonable profit.



But for some reason in this country. And in this country only. We have allowed that ?Bank? to essentially

extort whatever it wants from both the Doctors and Hospitals by making getting paid as hard as possible.

And to extort us patients. By raising the rates and to deny coverage anywhere they can. Making sure they make as much money as possible by playing the system to their benefit. What a scam.</blockquote>


Translation: I'm going to exclude specific data, entire segments of the industry, and other inconvenient facts, because they contradict the point I am trying to make. This is followed with generalizations, blanket statements, and unprovable assumptions that I will then use to justify the conclusion I want.



Bltserv, if I was to say "Let's say for the sake of argument that Dealerships and Service Shops were not owned by any Autogroups. The exception would be (insert list of dealerships owned by a parent autogroup, e.g. Tuttle-Click)", I would get eaten alive on these forums because I would be excluding the majority of Dealerships and Service Shops in order to make a point. You invalidate your own argument by using that kind of tactic.
 
It would be a lot funnier if it was not so true:



<a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa?rel=player">http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa?rel=player</a>
 
Submitted by Dylan Ratigan



I work for the General Electric Company. It is, at least at NBC Universal, a very nice place to work and I am very lucky to work there.



You meet lots of interesting and accomplished people, there are lights and cameras and action.



And GE is a good company, with well-established systems to hire, transfer, promote and sometimes fire the hundreds of thousands of people that make up the business.



One perk of being a GE employee is that you get special access to a GE product store where you can buy things like stoves and other GE Appliances at discounted employee rates. A nice perk, especially if you need a well-crafted stove.



But if you decide you want to buy your appliance someplace else, no problem, the GE Appliance Store is there if you want it at any time, but there is certainly no obligation to buy there. And they certainly don't pay me in expensive GE stoves, because I would much rather have actual money that I could then go and use it to buy any stove I want, maybe even a smaller, cheaper one since I live in New York City. Or if I didn't need a new stove, I could just use the money for something I did need.



The same is true for all of the non-health insurance I have. They have nothing to do with where I work, so I can change my homeowners insurance and car insurance at any time, and the insurers are forced to compete based on my preferences.



And yet that is exactly the opposite of how the Employer-based Health Care model works: they decide your choices, and if you don't like their limited selection, you end up having to forgo their entire subsidy and pay for the plan you want completely out of pocket. It would be like getting partially paid in stoves that you don't need and can't sell.



However, when you compare my predicament to the 47 million people without health insurance, I couldn't seem more whiny. The fact is that GE does provide me with excellent health insurance, so this really has nothing to do with benefiting me personally. But the cost of health insurance in this country is out of control, and it is not only keeping millions from accessing proper medical care, but it is also hobbling our large companies in the global marketplace and strangling at birth many of the small businesses we need so desperately to get job growth going.



Meanwhile, innovative health care programs like the Mayo Clinic are out of reach of most of the 174 million Americans currently on Employer-based health care, protecting the majority of insurers from competing against the Mayo Clinic's amazing advances. This in turn prevents the smarter, less-expensive large scale health care companies from growing large enough to cover the currently uninsured.



As it stands now, being forced into an Employer-based health care system encourages the exorbitant spending that is bankrupting our country.



Imagine, if you will, that you are going out to nice steakhouse tonight with every person that you work with. Now imagine that everyone in advance knows the total bill will just be split up equally at the end, no matter how much each of you orders. How many people do you think will order just a salad when they know that they will be paying for part of your double filet? Now imagine that half the bill will be paid by your company, except with the caveat that they get to pick the restaurant. Would this system ever work for a group lunch at your company? So why would we use it for something as important as health care?



So as we all watch this bill make its way with 564 Proposed Amendments on its first day, pay close attention to the employer voucher option being offered by Ron Wyden, which seeks to directly address this massive flaw. And once again, we must ask if our government really does work for the taxpayers and the well-intentioned doctors and hospitals who care for them? Or do they work for the entrenched insurers, employers that wish to stifle employee competition, employee benefit Management companies and unions that make billions or wield their power based on the current broken system and are lobbying hard to keep it that way? This will be yet another litmus test.



From <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-health-care-lets-liberate-masses">Zero Hedge</a>
 
More "Health Care Mythology"

by Clifford Asness, PH.D.



Myth #4 Socialized Medicine Is Better Because Their Cost/GDP For Health Care is Lower

The favorite statistic of fans of socialized medicine is that in the US we spend more as a

percentage of GDP on health care than in many countries with ?universal coverage.? I do not

argue with their statistics, but their logic is, as usual, way off. Warning, this list of why these

cost/GDP numbers are misleading is long, here goes...

? Measuring cost/GDP is inaccurate as it leaves out most of the cost, the cost of lower GDP

growth. As one would expect, countries with larger government sectors (including

socialized medicine) generally seem to experience slower GDP growth. People are great

at measuring costs that they easily can look up, but those are not all the costs!



? If I?m right about the US subsidizing the world of course their costs would be lower!



? Many of the countries we are being compared with come from, frankly, healthier cultures

than ours. I do not think the government should be allowed to make, for instance, your

health vs. fast food trade-off for you. If free Americans more often than others go for the

Wendy?s Triple w/ Cheese like I do, our cost/GDP will be higher. Freedom sometimes

ain?t sugar-free. By the way, if we change our system to socialism, but these habits

persist, our costs will still be higher. So, here come the diet and exercise laws...



? I do agree the US system could be better. I mention this again at the end, but I do not

think health care should be tax-free if provided by an employer. Being provided by

employers in the US leads to over-consumption (as it?s pre-tax and the marginal cost of

service is lower to the consumer), and worse, does indeed help lead to the fractious less

efficient organization of insurance (and the famous, and real, ?portability? problem). I

certainly agree that this structure raises costs, but if you have a simple problem like this,

you fix it, you do not say ?hey, let?s try communism.?



? A large fraction of health care costs are sadly in the short period before death from long-

term illness. If socialized societies ration these costs then their total cost/GDP could

indeed be lower than in the US. But, I can not see disallowing free people from spending

their own money on their last few months of life. If people have what economists would

call a ?taste? for this (in this case the word seems callous but it?s accurate) then a free

system could indeed voluntarily choose to spend more per GDP on health care. That is

not a bad feature of the system. It?s a wonderful feature of the system, as it allows

someone who spent a lifetime saving for retirement to use a little bit of that to live a bit

longer if it?s their desire. Just because you (perhaps) do not agree with the choice does

not mean you have a right to dictate to these people.



? As I mention again near the end, we also have a true cost problem in this country

emanating from our insane tort system. Some argue that this is exaggerated as they

measure the cost of the literal payouts to plaintiffs and say that while it is higher here

than in other countries it is not enough to explain our cost differential. But, again, they

only measure what they can see and fail to account for the massive cost of ?defensive

medicine? we force doctors to practice in anticipation of these tort lawyers. This indeed

makes our cost/GDP spent on health care too high, but the solution is again not the gulag

for us all, but perhaps only for half of the American Bar Association (ok, just cap their

awards, that would be fine).



? I admit this is near a matter of religion for me, but do fans of socialized medicine really

want to argue that if both were properly organized and not fettered with things like

voracious ambulance chasers, that the government could deliver material goods and

service, like health care and drugs, cheaper and more efficiently, for the same efficacy, as

the private sector? Really? Wow, even writing this essay, I just didn?t think anyone

could really believe that... And, by the way, by ?religion?, all I mean is I?m really sure,

it?s fact not faith based!



So, all considered, we should indeed be measuring our cost/GDP, and within a free system

attempting to keep it reasonable through reasonable policies (like rational tax and tort policies).

But a dictatorial socialist system is unnecessary for this purpose. It?s only necessary to enslave

the population.



8

Note that doctors also get paid comparatively very little in these countries. This was a bait and switch on the

current generation. It remains to be seen if it can be done again to the next generation, though one has to presume

not. The best and brightest will choose other careers. Another reason why the future for the socialized medicine

Nordic El Dorado is less bright than it's current reputation.
 
Not sure if this was already covered, but in response to the "capping awards" debate, its kind of overblown. We have such a cap here in California, and the costs are MINIMALLY passed on to the doctors vs. other states. Numerous studies have concluded that this measure did little in achieving its desired result; a MUCH smaller % reduction in costs. People should re-think this as the end-all.



And guess what, doctors still tell me all the time how they have to practice defensive medicine here in CA.



oh well. and for the record, I dont think free healthcare is a right. take care of yourself and cover your nut! And if we are going to have some kind of universal or supplementary system, are we going to tax the fatties? It would make sense. We have mandatory car insurance, but bad, accident-prone drivers who get tickets PAY MORE. Why can't we make unhealthy slobs pay more?
 
[quote author="MojoJD" date=1254208448]Not sure if this was already covered, but in response to the "capping awards" debate, its kind of overblown. We have such a cap here in California, and the costs are MINIMALLY passed on to the doctors vs. other states. Numerous studies have concluded that this measure did little in achieving its desired result; a MUCH smaller % reduction in costs. People should re-think this as the end-all.



And guess what, doctors still tell me all the time how they have to practice defensive medicine here in CA.



oh well. and for the record, I dont think free healthcare is a right. take care of yourself and cover your nut! And if we are going to have some kind of universal or supplementary system, are we going to tax the fatties? It would make sense. We have mandatory car insurance, but bad, accident-prone drivers who get tickets PAY MORE. Why can't we make unhealthy slobs pay more?</blockquote>


They already do pay more for their "fat" individual healthcare coverage.... and then get denied life insurance too. Any other ways you want to punish them? Deny them a driver license, so they have to walk their fat arses all over town maybe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top