Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='UncleBob']Obama says "his" plan will offer a choice to people and they'll get better care and cheaper prices.[/quote]

For a lot of people a public option would be an improvement.

No more hypothetical crap that leads nowhere but circles.
Click to expand...

Bob isn't capable of anything else. Well that and the ability to phrase his opinions as questions.

P.s. Bob, Despite what you think Obama's name isn't a magic tailisman.
 
You said no more cooked up Fox News crap. The only part of the Fox News story I used was a fact. Regardless of your feelings toward Fox News - it doesn't change the fact - there are those in countries where there is government provided health care who want a more Americanized service option.

No more hypothetical crap that leads nowhere but circles.
Click to expand...

Look - I'm here to discuss the situation. I'm not here to find a "cure" for our current health care system. If that's what you want to do, I would stop wasting your time here on CAG and, I don't know, maybe go out and do something worth while to help change the industry. Because sitting here pounding at your keyboard isn't going to accomplish anything.
 
Bobby, you've talked yourself full circle.

You tried to slam the Canadian health service by pointing out how the people wish they had a choice and don't have one.

Now you are trying to slam Obama by saying his idea to give us a choice is not going to work.
 
You said you are for deregulation. Historically, it has been demonstrated that deregulation only promotes competition in the early stages. In the latter stages, it actually eliminates competition as rivals are driven out of business.

The current financial situation further proves this.
 
As someone who as worked at a health insurance co for multiple years and has at least a decent knowledge of plan building, trust me when I say that dereg is the last thing that you want. The only reason that the insurance cos do most of what they do is only because of the laws in place! If it wasn't for these laws, they wouldn't offer much for coverage for anything and still charge exorbitant rates. The problem is that the politicians are already in the pocket of most of these co's via their lobby. You say Obama wants a socialist-esque plan? BS! His plan (which didn't go far enough!!) probably won't even get past his own party, because the Dems have moved so far into the middle it makes me sick!
 
Deregulation is a tricky bitch, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't see this as one of those times it would work well.

[quote name='HowStern']You said you are for deregulation. Historically, it has been demonstrated that deregulation only promotes competition in the early stages. In the latter stages, it actually eliminates competition as rivals are driven out of business.

The current financial situation further proves this.[/QUOTE]
 
it seems to me it would be much cheaper and simpler to attack the root of the problem- why so many more people are getting sick in the first place
especially when so many of today's health problems are man caused
rewrite the next Farm Bill so citizen health is more important than short term business profit
get food industry lobbyists out of the usda/fda, and vicecersa
salmonella, cancer, mercury from fish, diabetes, obesity, childhood personality disorders and learning disabilities, birth defects- all these problems are caused/worsened and continue to be caused by inefficient or downright criminal government regulation concerning industry, especially the food supply
It is staggering the degree of carcinogens, chemicals and other pollutants that are in nearly all foods americans consume- without even entering a debate on what happens as we mess with genetically modified foods.

really, it is like america is crazyland, and throwing x trillion dollars so everyone can purchase healthcare is the perfect assbackwards approach
 
You can't blame the FDA for all those problems. Farmers pollute the waterways with fertilizers. Businesses pollute the air, land, and water with their by-products. The food companies pump antibiotics into their animals because people buy plump chickens and not skinny ones.

You can't just put all that on government regulation. Get to the actual root of the problem and it's usually business and not government that is the root cause.

To fully clarify my position, I'm saying that there's no way to give more choice without the government stepping in increasing regulation. Bob was trying to say that you can have deregulation and more choice.
 
[quote name='depascal22']To fully clarify my position, I'm saying that there's no way to give more choice without the government stepping in increasing regulation. Bob was trying to say that you can have deregulation and more choice.[/QUOTE]

Take a moment and look at the industries that are highly regulated by the government. Broadcast media. Airlines. Health Care. What do they all have in common?
 
I would actually go as far as to say Health care isn't regulated enough. Insurers are getting away with murder, almost literally.

Look at a few industries that have little to no regulation from the government. Like the Auto industry and financial institutions. How are they doing?
 
The only reason I don't feel bad for the auto industry with that new standard is because they've known that oil is a limited resource since oil was known about. But instead of developing "greener" cars, or working on fuel efficiency, they were pumping out Hummers, ya know?

Except I know someone did have an electric car, I forget who, GM maybe?. But Cheney and the oil companies stepped in and basically had it vanish from production. There's a whole movie about it. Who killed the electric car or something. I haven't seen it, though. So I don't know the exact details.
 
The first Volt i believe. They never actually sold them i think, just leased them. Some people managed to hang onto theirs i believe
 
It was the EV-1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 - and I don't think there was any such conspiracy behind it, but that doesn't really matter. the point is domestic car companies are struggling to turn a profit even when they're allowed to make whatever decision is most profitable -- having the government mandate what they can/can't sell isn't going to make them more profitable.
 
[quote name='HowStern']
Except I know someone did have an electric car, I forget who, GM maybe?. But Cheney and the oil companies stepped in and basically had it vanish from production. There's a whole movie about it. Who killed the electric car or something. I haven't seen it, though. So I don't know the exact details.[/QUOTE]

you can't blame Cheney for the lack of electric cars. Look at Japan, Germany, etc. Why haven't they developed electric cars? Most countries in Europe and Japan are probably ideal for an inexpensive electric vehicle used mostly in the city limits (trains taking up longer trips). Did the all-powerful Cheney prevent them too?
 
[quote name='tivo']you can't blame Cheney for the lack of electric cars. Look at Japan, Germany, etc. Why haven't they developed electric cars? Most countries in Europe and Japan are probably ideal for an inexpensive electric vehicle used mostly in the city limits (trains taking up longer trips). Did the all-powerful Cheney prevent them too?[/QUOTE]

Yes, lets look at cars in other countries. Why haven't they developed an electric car?
Let's see. Maybe because the best selling car in japan was the Toyota VITZ until recently.
Used_Toyota_Vitz_2005.jpg
Hardly a Hummer...But what's the best selling type of car in Japan now?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/toyota-prius-2010-hybrid-car-sales-japan-honda-insight.php

Hybrids...

Meanwhile the best selling car in the U.S.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/03/be...-cx_jm_1203cars_slide_11.html?thisSpeed=15000

Ford f-150...16mpg..




Also, you can see in this article
http://www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

The EV-1 was put to rest by a number of lawsuits brought on by automobile manufacturers, the oil industry and the George W. Bush administration. Funny because Cheney was part of the Bush administration and a board member of both oil and automobile companies.
 
[quote name='HowStern']The EV-1 was put to rest by a number of lawsuits brought on by automobile manufacturers, the oil industry and the George W. Bush administration. Funny because Cheney was part of the Bush administration and a board member of both oil and automobile companies.[/QUOTE]
OR, like GM says, it was unprofitable... even 10 yrs later, now, the chevy volt is projected to sell at a loss... i don't think it's unreasonable to believe a similar vehicle 10 yrs ago (when gas was cheaper, battery tech sucked more, and fewer cared about MPG / emissions) would've been unprofitable.

[quote name='HowStern']Yes, lets look at cars in other countries. Why haven't they developed an electric car?
Let's see. Maybe because the best selling car in japan was the Toyota VITZ until recently.
Used_Toyota_Vitz_2005.jpg
Hardly a Hummer...But what's the best selling type of car in Japan now?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/toyota-prius-2010-hybrid-car-sales-japan-honda-insight.php

Hybrids...

Meanwhile the best selling car in the U.S.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/03/be...-cx_jm_1203cars_slide_11.html?thisSpeed=15000

Ford f-150...16mpg..

Also, you can see in this article
http://www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F[/QUOTE]

different areas... i bet the best selling car in urban cities is a compact car. america has much more open space. same deal with europe, they're way denser, more urban, so smaller cars make sense. it's very very rare that i see a big truck like that in seattle, but they're all over the place in louisiana. all the more reason for the government not to mandate strict CAFE standards, it's bullshit, especially when the companies are in the red, let them make profitable decisions instead of what's perceived to be environmental decisions (when, in fact, it'll hardly reduce transportation emissions at all) -- raising CAFE standards does absolutely nothing except handicap domestic automakers against foreign makers. hell, i wouldn't be surprised at all if foreign automakers lobbied for it...
 
[quote name='Koggit']OR, like GM says, it was unprofitable... even 10 yrs later, now, the chevy volt is projected to sell at a loss... i don't think it's unreasonable to believe a similar vehicle 10 yrs ago (when gas was cheaper, battery tech sucked more, and fewer cared about MPG / emissions) would've been unprofitable.[/QUOTE]

But they would've been set up to make a killing right now. Set up your short term losses for long term monster gains. Isn't that Free Capitalism 101?
 
That's just Gm trying to save their ass. There was quite a backlash when they took the ev-1 off the road.

http://www.envirolink.org/resource.html?itemid=20020824193105553380&catid=3

They lied about market response saying how poorly it sold. When in actuality they plain out refused to let people renew their leases on the vehicle. They say in the link you posted that it was because the warranties were too expensive to honor. But according to most of the comments from people who owned them they were willing to sign a waiver giving up their warranty.

And there is no doubt the Bush administration had ties with the oil company the 2002 tax credit for electric vehicles was $2,000 whereas the 2003 tax credit for large SUVs was $100,000.
 
[quote name='tivo']you can't blame Cheney for the lack of electric cars. Look at Japan, Germany, etc. Why haven't they developed electric cars? Most countries in Europe and Japan are probably ideal for an inexpensive electric vehicle used mostly in the city limits (trains taking up longer trips). Did the all-powerful Cheney prevent them too?[/QUOTE]

Do the math and you'll get your answer.

Let's assume any electric car is going to cost $5-10K in initial startup costs over its gas equivalent.

Let's assume the gas equivalent costs gets 40MPG.

At $4 per gallon, that's 10 cents per mile. The car will have to be driven 50,000-100,000 miles to break even if electricity was free. Assuming 10kWh is requires to push an electric car 60 miles, that's 1.67 cents per mile. That's only 67 cents per "gallon", but that increases the required mileage to 60,000-120,000.

At an average miles driven per year of 12,000, the break even point is 5-10 years from now.

Let's assume the cheese-eating surrender rats only drive 6k per year, the break even point is 10-20 years from now.

One last nail for the coffin: If nobody is trained to repair electric cars, how are they a viable consumer choice?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']One last nail for the coffin: If nobody is trained to repair electric cars, how are they a viable consumer choice?[/QUOTE]

You could've said the same thing about the locomotive, automobile, or the airplane. People will learn to fix them and, initially, they will be paid very well for their services. Unless you think a jet engine is less complicated than an electric car.
 
On the whole why dont other nations drive/develop other cars side my cousin just got back from Germany and he said those new smart cars are everywhere. We were at a graduation party for his son and we mentioned we were looking at them and my dad and a few other relatives went off on how they are horrid cars and listing all sorts of reasons not to drive them, thats when my cousin interjected showing how the Germans prove them wrong.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You could've said the same thing about the locomotive, automobile, or the airplane. People will learn to fix them and, initially, they will be paid very well for their services. Unless you think a jet engine is less complicated than an electric car.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but we're lazy now. Very few people extol the virtues of electric cars. Many companies with deep pockets are more than happy to keep the electric car off the scene with lawsuits.

It is just too hard to get off the ground with somebody standing on your throat.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25010.html

"Do what we say, or we'll force the money out of you!"

Does anyone seriously think a "Government option" for health insurance will be "fair" competition in the market?[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with you except ...

36 or 37 countries provide better health care to their people than the US does.

I real gungho about the free market, but I'd prefer to be the best.
 
I love the fact that the whole thing is based on Massachusetts' health care plan, the plan is a failure! It doesn't work and will bankrupt the nation!!!
 
nah, it's not based on ours. We are forced to have health care. Obama just wants everyone to have the option. Like France. They have public and private options and about 99% of the country has insurance but isn't required to.

Our system is a mess. Like what's happening with Boston Medical Center. If the public option was treated the same as the private that wouldn't be happening. The private insurers are able to really F people over.

I can't wait until Deval Patrick is outta there.
 
have we talked about the cost shift associated with the other two government run heatlhcare plans in force?


Does no one think that having a third larger government run health option will not cause more cost shift to the privately insured?

I think the cost shift from Medicare is ~1500 and the Medicaid is what 1000 annually... I know my premiums are $8500 yearly so what ~30%...

Here are some fun facts I was just handed at a meeting last week:

In 2008 National health Expenditures rose 6.9% (2x the rate of inflation)
Total spending in 2007... 2.7 Trillion
Expected to hit 4.3 Trillion by 2016
Currently health care spending is 4.3 times National defense spending

Since 2000 employer based health insurance premiums have increased ~119%\
Employee contributions increased 117%
Inflation has increased 44%
Wages have increased 29%

~1,500,000 million people lose their homes due to unfordable medical costs

Researchers at Harvard university found of those that filed for bankruptcy have out of pocket medical debt of ~$12,000
68% had health insurance
50% were partly due to medical expenses
~ every 30 seconds someone filing for bankruptcy following aftermath of a serious health problem (this is not saying debt only, maybe time off work, etc)

FACTORS contributing to rising health care costs:
Cost shifting from uninsured to insured
Cost shifting from Medicare & Medicaid to insured
Technology advances
Prescription drugs/advertisements
Aging Baby Boomer population
 
Option? If there's a public option, the number of options will decrease to 1 rather quick. Businesses control most health care plans, not the individual. If they say they're not going to be a part of let's say...Blue Cross Blue Shield and a part of a Government plan, you're going to be forced to have that Government plan.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Does no one think that having a third larger government run health option will not cause more cost shift to the privately insured?[/quote]

I don't think that is all that likely.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Option? If there's a public option, the number of options will decrease to 1 rather quick. Businesses control most health care plans, not the individual. If they say they're not going to be a part of let's say...Blue Cross Blue Shield and a part of a Government plan, you're going to be forced to have that Government plan.[/QUOTE]

Believe me I know that... not 2 hours ago I was in talking to the president (of our agency) on our own HRA account and why he is reimbursing to once again add to the buffer account... now a good thing to see a check request for another $20,000 in this economy. I was the one that set up our HRA account in 2007..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']Option? If there's a public option, the number of options will decrease to 1 rather quick. Businesses control most health care plans, not the individual. If they say they're not going to be a part of let's say...Blue Cross Blue Shield and a part of a Government plan, you're going to be forced to have that Government plan.[/QUOTE]

Correct. Once government takes over, it takes over.

Will things get worse, better or stay the same?

If our healthcare is ranked 40th or 50th in 20 years compared to other countries, we need to go back to private insurance.

If our healthcare is ranked 20th or 30th in 20 years compared to other countries, going to socialized medicine will have proven to be a good thing.

If our healthcare ranking doesn't change, the personal opinion of healthcare performance will based on that person's old cost under private healthcare versus the current cost under public healthcare.
 
I think what's telling is that in the current health care proposal, members of Congress will be exempt from the very health care plan they are devising for the rest of us. Take that for what you will.
 
The one thing I am sick of hearing about is it's not "forced universal healthcare". You're right, it's not forced. However, if you don't have health insurance, you get fined. If you're a business that doesn't provide health insurance for your employees, you get fined (different amounts depending on the size of your payroll). No ones being forced to do anything all.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I think what's telling is that in the current health care proposal, members of Congress will be exempt from the very health care plan they are devising for the rest of us. Take that for what you will.[/QUOTE]

Like the current plan they're exempt from?

Hardly a compelling argument for maintaining what we have now.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Like the current plan they're exempt from?

Hardly a compelling argument for maintaining what we have now.[/QUOTE]

I don't see where in my statement that ever said I endorse the current health care system. It is extremely broken and needs some radical changes to fix it, most fundamentally a complete change in philosophy in where our priorities lie in how we allocate health care dollars. Simply imposing a government run health care system where reimbursements to providers will be further squeezed, taxes further increased and where a bureaucrat and not your physician ultimately makes your health care decisions is not the answer and is simply a recipe for disaster.

I hope I'm wrong but based on my experience in dealing with Medicare and Medicaid, I'm sure I'm not. And deep down so do the politicians.
 
[quote name='dopa345']...where a bureaucrat and not your physician ultimately makes your health care decisions is not the answer and is simply a recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE]

If you modify government bureaucrat with a HMO bureaucrat, how is that different than the current system?
 
myke,

This is a serious question. Are you just playing devils advocate, or do you have a stance on this with one or another health proposal.
 
I don't believe health care should be a for-profit industry.

But I don't believe any aspect of our military or prison systems should be either. So I guess that makes me an god-and-apple-pie hating communist.

There are compelling philosophies[/s] as to why the government should not become involved with health care, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the current free-market/insurance system works at all. In fact, the accusations levied at a federal system (increased cost, bloated bureaucracy, inefficient care, poor quality care) describe precisely what the current state of health care in the United States is.

I don't care if the federal option puts private insurance out of business. Take the pharmaceutical industry with you while you're at it. Good riddance, and to hell with both of you. Neither of them deserve to exist or compete in the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top