What do you think healthcare "reform" will accomplish?

By the way, the zoo sells apples, bananas, and salads too. But they don't sell many. At least they have a tram for those who don't feel like walking up Cheyenne Mountain. Thank God for that.

longetiviter wrote:

Actually, increased longevity will increase costs. The elderly are the ones who use the most healthcare. Not to mention that the elderly no longer work, which means they no longer have income (unless you consider social security income -- which is an expense for the government as well.)

The increased costs of longevity will be more than offset by the increased taxes collected.

Your notion that the elderly no longer work is irrelevant to the discussion.

Sagarin wrote:

By the way, the zoo sells apples, bananas, and salads too. But they don't sell many. At least they have a tram for those who don't feel like walking up Cheyenne Mountain. Thank God for that.

ok, we get it.

Your family eats healthy.

So what reward do you receive from your current employer based health care plan that rewards you and your family for eating healthy? Does your health insurance give you and annual physical and then reward you based on the diagnostic information? Or do you just pay what everyone else in your organization pays?

Do you like paying 30-40% more for the same care someone else in the world gets because you have a middle man taking chunks out of it and pushing paperwork? Do you like the fact that your company CEO is the only one bargaining for your health care choice? Are you excited about the prospect that they could drop your child if he got leukemia? Or your spouse if she got ovarian cancer? Do you like the fact that many plans tell you what prescription you can get and have it paid for?

How does it feel to you to know that there are people who make very little - but are still above the poverty level, and cannot afford $250-$500 a month for premiums for their family? Should their children not go to the dentist or to see a doctor when they have the flu?

Sagarin wrote:

And the trojan horse nature of it will ULTIMATELY force more demand upon the government, requiring a greater subsidy, and ultimately THWARTING competition, thereby RAISING costs

Unfounded and irrational speculation, to say the least.

Except for the glaring oversight that it has precedent.

Is there a line anywhere, that the Federal Government should not cross, in fulfilling its intended role? If you believe there is a boundary out there on the horizon, where the Federal Government should be restricted from entering the business that makes up our lives, who or what will enforce that restriction in the future? Growing numbers of our population are being steadily turned into addicts of the "free" incentives and services that flow from the Federal teat and ever more willingly vote for representatives that promise and deliver more and more of the sweet "junk".

Do we really think that 60 or 80 years ago, there would be any significant support for plans as intrusive and costly as those being considered or implemented in the past few years? Yet here we are, members of a soft and growing softer society, clamoring for career politicians to fix everything unpleasant thing in our lives.

For those of you who support Government provided Health Care Reform, sooner or later, your "over my dead body" issue is going to be on the block for auction and who will stand with you to prevent the forcible takeover by our Country's largest monopoly?

Our focus shouldn't be so much about the current administration or whether the details of proposed Health Care legislation benefit us. It should be on the basic question of whether the Federal Government even has a right to be involved in a particular process at all.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you unconstitutionally blonde, when you don't read a word I say. I never said I find the STATUS QUO acceptable. I don't think the liability of medicine should even be pinned to employers. But there are ways to make it competitive so that everyone can afford a policy, and there are ways to foster greater accountability and transparency, none of which are included in this bill. Elective surgeries like lasik are coming DOWN in price, for this very reason. Moreover, I've even said I'm ok with a refundable tax credit to buy insurance for those who absolutely cannot, for whatever reason, afford a policy.

This bill is an agenda and a boondoggle that will shift the liability of medicine but do nothing to drive down cost, ultimately hurting more than it helps, because that's what government does, just like their housing promotion machines that distorted the credit markets (and to think that it will only "cover" a third to a half as many as it was originally supposed to cover). The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and just what in the hell makes you think we can even afford another $1.2-1.4 trillion bill (which will be at least three-four times that as it always is) on top of the rest of our sub-prime sovereign debt?

So, yeah, you eat like shit, smoke, booze, and ignore the warning signs in your blood and your doctor's advice, you deserve what you get. We have free will indeed, but not when it comes at a cost to others to subsidize your irresponsibility. Remember, 55% of the ultimate proxy in medicare is for diabetes and heart disease expenditures, 90% of which are elective illnesses. Maybe I'll pay for one of your stent procedures, but you sure as hell don't get another one.

Sagarin wrote:

Except for the glaring oversight that it has precedent.

The precedent suggests that competition is good for the consumer. Prices will be driven down while services are improved.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I'd like to know what the supporters of this "reform" think it will accomplish? Specifically, what do you think it will do and how will it do it:

- to make health insurance more affordable for the individual

- to lower the per capita cost of healthcare

- to improve the quality of care

- to increase longevity

- to pay for the reform without raising taxes

- to reduce the deficit

Also, do you think someone who can afford to but refuses to buy insurance should be imprisoned?

Explain to us how doing nothing about this health care would support any of your questions. This country was falling apart long before Obama took over. He simply has the guts to make the changes the previous cowards wouldn't. He know it's not "popular," but obviously feels it's necessary.

I have a great state job where my insurance is only $21 a month (HMO, w/ no co-pays or deductibles, and no prescription drug charges). My parents & 2 siblings don't. They pay between $365-$488 per month for health care (family) through their employer (HMO w/ $10-30 co-pays with heavy extras for hospital visits). My brother for example makes 35k per year, but after takes loses a quarter of his take-home pay to health care. Also, he just had to pay $1500 out of pocket when his 1st child was born with complications. (I paid $50). Something is wrong America!!! An American making 35k per year should not be bringing home less than $2000 a month to support a family. This is why our welfare system is so abused. If you make less than 25-30k per year and have a family. You are almost smarter to stay home and let the government support you. Day care alone cost 600-900 a month!!! Health care and "some" employers are ROBBING Americans! It's getting worse and worse...

Letsrun Roll call: I'm extremely curious...

How much do you pay monthly for health insurance? Family or Individual plan.

- to make health insurance more affordable for the individual

* It will make it affordable to some who cannot afford it at all. Forcing healthy people who have the means to pay into this that are currently not paying will help.

- to lower the per capita cost of healthcare

* People having the ability to receive care earlier makes the over all cost less.

- to improve the quality of care

* Knowing they will get paid could incentivise doctors to give better care. (?)

- to increase longevity

* No we really do want death panels to shorten expensive end of life care

- to pay for the reform without raising taxes

* too simple of a statement. Some taxes could be raised to cover this while municipal costs of ER treatment will go down which effectively lowers taxes. Many other variables also effect tax payer cost.

- to reduce the deficit

* ideally efficiencies in processing, money transfering, earlier treatment, healthier people earning a taxable living, etc could reduce the burden over time.

If the private insurance companies produce a good product they will survive and thrive just FedEx does with the existence of the post office.

It's going to cost some to help others. Do people really want to do that?

Help the economy. US companies are failing because of the rising costs of benefits they provide to their employees.

Sagarin wrote:This bill is an agenda and a boondoggle that will shift the liability of medicine but do nothing to drive down cost, ultimately hurting more than it helps, because that's what government does, just like their housing promotion machines that distorted the credit markets (and to think that it will only "cover" a third to a half as many as it was originally supposed to cover). The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and just what in the hell makes you think we can even afford another $1.2-1.4 trillion bill (which will be at least three-four times that as it always is) on top of the rest of our sub-prime sovereign debt?

Once again, here's an instance of why I appreciate the thought and rationality that you put in your posts Sagarin. At the same time, though, I think it's fair to say that we're screwed. I just happen to think it's for a different reason than you do.

If a rational economic conservative can get drawn into this debate without noting why the bill is shaped the way it is (let's face it... politics have turned this thing into the cluster it is... not just a liberal "agenda") then there's no chance cooler heads can prevail.

The bottom line is this is all about politics.

If a Democrat compromises with the right, or a Republican compromises with the left, the political climate will burn them alive. It's in the Republicans interest to sink everyhting the Obama administration pushes through. The opposite goes with the Democrats interest.

The Democrats remember how they got screwed after their failed attempt in the early 90's. The Republicans, however, know that if the Obama administration gets this through politically he'll break them.

All this is about is finding a leg to stand on next election cycle.

Around $150 a month including dental, vision and general health. Then again, we have a hospital, several clinics, a medical school, etc... in addition to a system with 25,000 employees and 65,000 students who pay a mandatory health fee.

It's the best insurance I've had in my life. I paid $225 under my last employer.

http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/departments/hr/benefits/2009aepremiums.pdf

I agree, the reason this watered-down "bill" that won't keep cost under containtment exists is because not one republican (oh yes one - maybe two) would really participate in a productive process - and then throw in the bluedogs who did nothing but tear apart a one-payer plan that would give us universal health care coverage and eliminate the insurance companies from healthcare. There was no cooperation in this bill - and don't tell me it was too much too soon - we've been talking about this for 50 years. There should not be profits on people's health - healthcare is not a commodity.

as far as free will - I don't see how your going to impact free will and free choice and decide who is making good choices and who is not. people make plenty of poor choices in all areas, including how they wish to drive and how they wish to buy and home, crime, building a home next to the ocean, financing a war without a cause - and you participate in financing those poor choices .....

policing myself

profit....you're

I don't want to hijack BRM's thread, but John Najarian just brought up a point on CNBC (yes, I HAVE to have it on for work, not because I think it's terribly "value-added") that I've been warning about for two years when I said the perfect storm was not the last eight years before Obama. It's on its way, and here's a press release that reveals the cracks are beginning to surface - another US company moving offshore because our onerous tax policy and fiscal imperatives no longer allow it to compete:

"allow Ensco to benefit from the U.K.’s developed tax regime and extensive tax treaty network, and potentially achieve a global effective tax rate comparable to that of some of Ensco’s global competitors."

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105001&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=1352784&highlight=

As I said, the resourceful will flee while we are busy making unfunded and unfundable pledges to the 60% majority shareholder in government who no longer pay any Federal income tax when considering refundable credits. The least able in this country will be left even worse off in time as happened in Michigan and as is happening in California right now. Here's hoping you have secured property elsewhere or are prepared for a different way of life. And I agree that the time frame of a politician is tantamount to that of a senior executive sitting on millions in vested stock options, which will only prove damaging over time. And so it is...

The Dumbocraps need to act like Democrats, and the Re-bumble-cans need to act like Republic-Agains. Or, maybe we just need a new Mayflower.

Actually, as I understand it, the Republicans were essentially blackballed from all meaningful subcomittee meetings on the skeleton of the bill, but I'd tend to agree that it is their MO to try and break Obama on this piece of legislation. And this time, I agree with it, because I think there are other ducks we need to get in a row first. But, we're intent on killing the Golden Goose, and "borrowing" just enough (in time and paper) to get "desperately needed" legislation through before the political window closes. And it's going to be very damaging.

Ummm, in case you didn't notice U.K.'s favorable tax policy includes a national health care system.

See, that's why I'm all for small business getting just about whatever tax cuts they want. Major, multi-national companies though... I'm a little more skeptical. The bigger they are, the easier it is for them to overpay execuitives, hedge the market, and move overseas.

Not to get off topic here...