Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='Ruined']McCain: Public option must be dropped for agreement on healthcare.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_public_option/2009/08/23/251279.html

McCain is 100% spot on here. There are alternatives to massive gov't intervention that can create more competition/options.[/QUOTE]
I would rather see all of the bills scraped and Congress starting over. If you are going to have health care reform, don't say that a 2% reduction in drug costs is savings. Don't have a clause in the bill that prohibits negotiation with drug companies for the best price. Don't have an individual mandate. Don't cut secretive back room deals with the health care companies. Create a bill that will actually help people, not this bullshit that we have now.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I would rather see all of the bills scraped and Congress starting over. If you are going to have health care reform, don't say that a 2% reduction in drug costs is savings. Don't have a clause in the bill that prohibits negotiation with drug companies for the best price. Don't have an individual mandate. Don't cut secretive back room deals with the health care companies. Create a bill that will actually help people, not this bullshit that we have now.[/QUOTE]

Would you be better with a simple single payer system?
 
[quote name='Nebenator']Trying to stay on topic, I agree with the OP. We don't have money to spend right now, and taxing us WILL NOT HELP. [/QUOTE]

The OP doesn't even agree with the OP anymore judging how he disappeared in a cloud of cheetoh dust.

P.s. We cannot afford not to make reforms, you would probably know this if you bothered to read anything in this thread before posting.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The OP doesn't even agree with the OP anymore judging how he disappeared in a cloud of cheetoh dust.

P.s. We cannot afford not to make reforms, you would probably know this if you bothered to read anything in this thread before posting.[/QUOTE]
I think the OP just doesn't want to argue for 2 weeks straight.
 
[quote name='Nebenator']I think the OP just doesn't want to argue for 2 weeks straight.[/QUOTE]

The OP didn't argue at all, he posted one shoddy article and made one post that was a load drivel strung together.

There is a distinction.

I don't mean to rag on you, but you might find this interesting and it was only a few pages back:

http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/07/cbo-scores-confirms-deficit-ne.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Nebenator']I think the OP just doesn't want to argue for 2 weeks straight.[/QUOTE]

It has been 2 months and almost 2 weeks. Clearly, the Crotch is correct.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I found this Newsweek piece one of the better things I've read about all the FUD on the health care plans and why it catches on while the facts get lost in the shuffle.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212131

The white house really needs to do more to make the plan clear and dispell myths. Having a lot of debate on the topic is good, but it needs to be centered on facts of the plan not lies and misinformation that distracts from what's really being proposed.[/QUOTE]

You are right. Public opinion is tanking on healthcare because platitudes and feel-good bumper-sticker slogans, without hard facts and detailed plans might get the public to elect someone, but it won't get them to support a program that affects every single one of them drastically.

Our leaders can't even stand in front of us and answer simple questions about the plans they propose, so it's starting to seem as if the plans were written in such a convoluted way that anything could become of them. I think John Q Publics slick $2 used-car salesman sensors are going en masse. Especially if our own leaders don't understand what they are pitching.

It's almost as if they are just trying to get us to support another "vote for change" without much information about the change. And why wouldn't they, when it's worked so well before?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090824/us_time/08599191826100
The health-care-reform bill proposed by House Democrats does not actually override those restrictions. But it does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program - the so-called public option - without spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion. Instead, the only money the public insurance option could spend on abortion that does not involve rape, incest or the life of the mother would be money collected from members dues; or, in the words of supporters like Elizabeth Shipp, of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the plan "could only use private funds to pay for abortion services."
Click to expand...
Under the legislation, the Executive Branch would have to make a determination that abortion is a basic medical service for the service to be provided, something the Obama Administration is expected to do.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, pregnancy was not a medical ailment.
 
Hey look.

The people who argue that it would provide too little care (via their arguments about "rationing" and "death panels" are now upset that it provides more care than they expected.

Further proof that some of the most vocal opponents of health care reform only have ideology in mind, and simply won't be pleased with any bill in any form.

You've defeated your own argument.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hey look.

The people who argue that it would provide too little care (via their arguments about "rationing" and "death panels" are now upset that it provides more care than they expected.

Further proof that some of the most vocal opponents of health care reform only have ideology in mind, and simply won't be pleased with any bill in any form.

You've defeated your own argument.[/QUOTE]
I would think that the argument would be it provides care in all the wrong places, but not in the right ones.
 
But there's nothing to support the assertion that rationing or denial of care will occur, save for the ideological disposition of Reaganism: if government touches it, it'll fuck it up.
 
The problem is that no health care plan that's been ever proposed truly addresses why health care costs are so high. That's why they will all be doomed to failure.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But there's nothing to support the assertion that rationing or denial of care will occur, [/QUOTE]
Money. More specifically the 500 billion cut from Medicare.
save for the ideological disposition of Reaganism: if government touches it, it'll fuck it up.
Click to expand...
That is actually what tends to happen. See the Post Office, Amtrack, ect. That's largely because of the status of our government today though. Inefficient, and corrupt.
 
Just making an observation here... why do mainly UncleBob and Fullmetal fan arguments mainly consist of "good" "bad" "right" "wrong"? Any person whom has taken logic 101 knows that those subjective vague terms hold no place in any argument.
 
[quote name='gareman']Just making an observation here... why do mainly UncleBob and Fullmetal fan arguments mainly consist of "good" "bad" "right" "wrong"? Any person whom has taken logic 101 knows that those subjective vague terms hold no place in any argument.[/QUOTE]
Sure, let's just ignore the corruption in these health care bills, and the screwing of people over, and instead focus on attacks on people.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But there's nothing to support the assertion that rationing or denial of care will occur, save for the ideological disposition of Reaganism: if government touches it, it'll fuck it up.[/QUOTE]

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.
 
[quote name='gareman']Just making an observation here... why do mainly UncleBob and Fullmetal fan arguments mainly consist of "good" "bad" "right" "wrong"? Any person whom has taken logic 101 knows that those subjective vague terms hold no place in any argument.[/QUOTE]

Bob flits from logical fallacy to logical fallacy like a butterfly with wings of fail.

There is no actual argument against health care reform and it seems like the public option might become a reality, although I still believe the Democrats have a chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
say a kid has a mild concussion. under universal health care there would be no reason not for him to get a MRI (except common sense). Now extrapolate this frivolous screening and testing to the 300+ million people all for "preventative*" testing. Sure, a lot of people wont get tested, but their will be an increase in cases without an increase in physicians. Wait times will follow. Costs will dictate certain protocols instead of looking at an individual basis and people wont always get what they want.

Do you honestly believe the government would pay for a hip replacement for a 90 yr. old grandmother? They wouldn't and many other cases will reach similar outcomes. In all, from quality to cost, obamacare is a bad idea.


*nothing is preventative - cancer, car crashes, etc. all happen and one can't be tested for everything/ the costs of testing everyone exceeds the cost of treating the few - so calling it "preventative" is a misnomer.


P.S. why did you put "Volvo" in quotes
 
Joe Lieberman, head of the Liebermen for Lieberman party came out against a public option today.

For completely contradictory and incoherent reasons to no ones surprise.
 
[quote name='tivo']*nothing is preventative - cancer, car crashes, etc. all happen and one can't be tested for everything/ the costs of testing everyone exceeds the cost of treating the few - so calling it "preventative" is a misnomer.[/QUOTE]

It's not really a misnomer, but there has been a lot of crazy claims about it during this debate.

The misinformation spread by the administration on preventative testing is great. Studies have shown that preventative testing (things like mammograms) does not save money at all, but costs more on the whole (for example, test 100 people, catch 1 person who would get sick, save money on that 1 person, but have an extra cost for the other 99 that exceeds the savings on the 1 person). That's not to say that it isn't worth the extra cost, but Obama and Democrats go around saying "we need prevention to save money," which is a blatant falsehood. Perhaps supporters of such things think that if they repeat this lie often enough, people will believe it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
There is no actual argument against health care reform and it seems like the public option might become a reality, although I still believe the Democrats have a chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.[/QUOTE]
No, there is an argument against your kind of health care "reform," but it seems you constantly ignore it. You can't cut 500 billion from Medicare and not have a reduction in care. 2% savings on prescription drugs is not savings, when there is a no negotiation clause. ect.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Why wouldn't there be an increase in physicians?[/QUOTE]

There's already a decline in primary care physicians.

As I said, a big problem is most people go into it for the money, not out of wanting to help people, so they gravitate more toward specialist positions that pay more rather than doing primary care internal medicine.

That's a reason why the US already has a longer average wait time to see your primary care physician than some other countries--including Canada and some others with universal health care per the Newsweek article I linked (I think--or another column in the same issue).

Though I think the government could help that out by offering to excuse student loans for doctors who agree to practice primary care internal medicine for 10 years etc.--like many places do for teachers.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's not really a misnomer, but there has been a lot of crazy claims about it during this debate.

The misinformation spread by the administration on preventative testing is great. Studies have shown that preventative testing (things like mammograms) does not save money at all, but costs more on the whole (for example, test 100 people, catch 1 person who would get sick, save money on that 1 person, but have an extra cost for the other 99 that exceeds the savings on the 1 person). That's not to say that it isn't worth the extra cost, but Obama and Democrats go around saying "we need prevention to save money," which is a blatant falsehood. Perhaps supporters of such things think that if they repeat this lie often enough, people will believe it.[/QUOTE]

I don't think your idea of preventative care is what most people consider preventative care.
 
Yeah, if anything testing like that is one small part of preventative care.

True preventative care is having major efforts to promote health. Get obesity down, get people exercising, get people eating healthy, get people to not smoke, to not abuse alcohol, to wear sunscreen etc. etc.

A lot of illness in this country is due to bad habits--especially heart disease and lung problems.

Have regular physicals wear the doctors advise on these things and so forth. Though I still think the best way to get people to change is to give financial incentives. Have insurance premiums at some base rate and from their people can earn discounts by not smoking, keeping their bodyfat in the excellent or good ranges for their age, having a gym membership (which could also be tax deductable) etc. etc. That gives people a financial incentive to take care of themselves so they can save money--just like not speeding and avoiding tickets so you can get the safe driver discount on your car insurance.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']What's the country's GDP again?[/QUOTE]

A little under 9T.

EDIT: I feel like a prude. I've had almost $9K spent on me this year and the government has barely fucked me. I guess they're saving up for next year.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True preventative care is having major efforts to promote health. Get obesity down, get people exercising, get people eating healthy, get people to not smoke, to not abuse alcohol, to wear sunscreen etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I see. What you say is "preventative care" is what I say is "social engineering," which I'm totally against on the grounds of I'll-live-my-life-the-way-I-want-so-fuck-off-government. Real preventative care, what I was referring to, includes things like blood tests, prostate exams, breast cancer screening and the like. While these things are certainly worthwhile, to say they save money (among a group as opposed to an individual) is just not true.
 
People can live the way they want to.

But if they want to be worthless, unhealthy fat slobs, then they should pay higher premiums--not have everyone pay higher premiums to subsidize their more frequent need of health care. See the stats I posted earlier on the thread on how much an obese person accrues in a year in health care costs on average vs. people at healthy weight.

Just like people with perfect driving records get discounts, so should those of us who keep our selves in great shape and don't need to use the health care system very often.

The only ways to save money on health care spending are:

1. Get the populace, on average, healthier and needing medicine, surgery etc. less often.
2. Find a way to get costs charged to patients/billed to insurance down. Drugs, office visits, surgery's etc. all cost way more than they should as the health care system has become nothing but another capitalist system focused only on maximizing profits rather than providing the best and most efficient health care for patients.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']A little under 9T.

EDIT: I feel like a prude. I've had almost $9K spent on me this year and the government has barely fucked me. I guess they're saving up for next year.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing the total will near 18 trillion and then someone will finally call in our Bar Tab.
 
^^
unhealthy people, or people with preexisting conditions, do pay, and should pay, higher premiums because they are more likely to require medical care. its the same for automotive insurance with crappy old cars. but there are laws in place that prevent insurance companies from excluding high risk people.

now i agree partly with dmaul on #2. just like auto insurance does not cover oil changes, gas fill ups, etc. routine office visits and check ups should not be covered by insurance and instead should be paid out of pocket by individuals. these cost way more than they should and would if covered by the individual.

another issue that hasn't really been addressed here that would definitely save money is that health insurance should not be attached with one's employment. companies receive rediculous amounts of money from the government to help them pay for their employee;s insurance. cut that BS out. let everyone pay for the private insurance they want/need on an individual basis and offer discounts/rebates to individuals with insurance rather than only to companies (although id prefer not to have any discount/rebate from owning health insurance as what would stop the insurance companies from raising their prices by an equivalent amount).
 
quick question, i know that no one has read the 1000+ page bill, but assuming the health care proposed is similar to European health care, will everyone be allowed to take an ambulance to the emergency room whenever they have a problem no matter the degree?

because if so, then it could get real pricey real soon but if not, it sounds like another death panel spin off.

let me know what you think.
 
[quote name='tivo']^^
unhealthy people, or people with preexisting conditions, do pay, and should pay, higher premiums because they are more likely to require medical care. its the same for automotive insurance with crappy old cars. but there are laws in place that prevent insurance companies from excluding high risk people.[/QUOTE]

Now you're putting words in his mouth.

He said unhealthy slobs should pay more - not people with preexisting conditions.
 
[quote name='tivo']quick question, i know that no one has read the 1000+ page bill, but assuming the health care proposed is similar to European health care, will everyone be allowed to take an ambulance to the emergency room whenever they have a problem no matter the degree?

because if so, then it could get real pricey real soon but if not, it sounds like another death panel spin off.

let me know what you think.[/QUOTE]

That's the thing a lot of people don't get about this. Either we cover everyone for everything - which is going to cost a lot of money, or there's going to have to be some kind of review process in place wherein the government denies treatment.
 
That's just more theory.

The argument that preventative care is less costly by seeing more people rests on the premise that going to see a physician in advance for a "hey, my tummy feels funny" and getting advice on maintenance and avoiding greater problems is cheaper than a several-day hospital stay, ambulance ride, major invasive surgical procedure, aftercare, pharmaceuticals, and the other things I'm neglecting because I've not enough caffeine.

"Hey, look at your blood pressure and cholesterol levels! Sorry, dude, no more "Grand Slams" for breakfast: it's oatmeal diet time for you!" isn't something that people hear or abide by if they don't go to see any physicians until it happens *after* major heart troubles. Like was noted a few pages back, Americans are in denial about their own weight assessment and the problems that correspond with that. The health problems that will result due to the combination of the risk assessment itself, the corresponding denial, and their not hearing or following physician advice - that is what we're talking about here.

To say that preventative care is not cheaper than major surgery is a medical/economic argument akin to intelligent design. It goes against all major research in both fields, has no basis in reality, and requires a willingness to come to a conclusion about something without having any undertaking in gathering actual facts first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top