|
View Poll Results: So, what do you think? | |||
Great but not enough, keep on going | 8 | 20.00% | |
Good enough (for now) | 13 | 32.50% | |
Bad (but okay, we lost, let's move on and make the best of it) | 5 | 12.50% | |
Bad as in Armageddon | 12 | 30.00% | |
Trout as in neutral | 2 | 5.00% | |
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
11-21-2009, 02:21 PM | #601 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
Quote:
Tried to google it and didn't come up with any specifics. A few articles that simply state that they are "expensive to run". This article states $2 million for an MRI machine, and states that the US has 3 times as many MRI machines per person than England or France, and 4 times as many per person than Canada. Japan is the only nation with more per person. http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/...upting-america |
|
11-22-2009, 12:20 AM | #602 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
Interesting, It just seems we aren't dealing with the real roots of health care and applying a band-aid situation to the problem. I wonder how much the cost increases are to the fact that we have all of these billion-dollar drugs (in terms of R&D), these multi-million treatments (cancer), insanely expensive tech. I'm guessing the research and development (I'm talking in terms of getting it to the market) of this stuff has increase much higher than any rate in history. Last edited by Galaxy : 11-22-2009 at 12:22 AM. |
|
11-22-2009, 01:43 AM | #603 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
The whole system is a mess and I just don't know how you can fix it. Doctors are pushing to get as much as they can out of you, insurance companies are trying to get the most out of you while skimping doctors, while the lawyers are out there fucking over doctors who then fuck us all in return. Everyone has their hand in the cookie jar and the average person is the one getting fucked. |
|
11-22-2009, 01:47 AM | #604 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
I think the increase of costs are partly technology, but also in large part that doctors, insurance companies, and lawyers have lobbied our politicians so hard that the system is rigged against the consumer. Creating a true free market for insurance and prescription drugs would drastically lower the costs. Monitoring doctors who abuse their powers to bill for unnecessary treatments would lower costs. And not allowing lawyers to sue for a gazillion dollar every time a doctor makes a judgement call would lower costs. But those groups own our government (and a lot of dumb people). That is the problem. Until that is fixed, we'll get these band-aid solutions because politicians are too pussy to actually stand up to these industries. |
|
11-22-2009, 04:06 PM | #605 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
To be fair, that bribe number isn't accurate. Landrieu has already admitted it was $300 million dollars that was offered, not $100 million. Dana Milbank - Sweeteners for the South |
|
11-22-2009, 05:48 PM | #606 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
11-22-2009, 06:12 PM | #607 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
Which is fine provided she shuts up about fiscal responsibility.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
11-22-2009, 06:28 PM | #608 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
|
11-22-2009, 07:30 PM | #609 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
|
11-22-2009, 07:55 PM | #610 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
More centrist principles. This was on Lincoln's website as of last night.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
11-22-2009, 08:38 PM | #611 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
|
11-22-2009, 10:38 PM | #612 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Louisiana is a welfare state. She got more welfare for it. Not sure I can blame her.
|
11-22-2009, 10:55 PM | #613 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
Just curious, what does "quality, affordable" healthcare mean? This is what drives me nuts. No such concept exists. When cancer treatments cost in the six-to-seven figures, when MRI machines cost $2 million alone, when proton cancer centers cost up to $200 million just to build, when drug research and development costs up to a $1 billion to bring to the market (not counting the failures), and so on, we need to get realistic. Even if you went to a full-blown universal health care system, we have to get real about the costs of the actual resources we use. We want/demand the best, but we don't want to pay for it. Last edited by Galaxy : 11-22-2009 at 10:59 PM. |
|
11-23-2009, 06:24 AM | #614 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
That's what infuriates me about the GOP Medicare stance. They are now against any reductions in Medicare spending for any reason. It's clear that Medicare will bankrupt us if not changed, but it's more politically expedient to scare the hell out of seniors. Better work on my Mandarin.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
11-23-2009, 06:28 AM | #615 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
Quote:
I've posted in this thread dozens of times much more then one liners. All this 'reform' is going to do is generate huge deficit spending. Just look at what they had to give away to get this bill to the floor. You seem to think that it's acceptable to give a Senator a $300 million dollar gift for her vote. Now that you've given her $300 million - how many more billions for the others who are going to demand you pay for their vote. Somehow a legislative body that is willing to pay $300 million for a single vote has the ability to reform health care in an affordable fashion? Please, this is just Congress and the government looking to gain power by controlling another huge percentage of the economy. Maybe you'll like being in China's pocket when they own trillions of our debt, I'd prefer not to be. The system is far from perfect and needs changes, but these bills are just a milestone on the road to economic ruin. |
|
11-23-2009, 06:34 AM | #616 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
|
11-23-2009, 07:13 AM | #617 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
|
11-23-2009, 08:09 AM | #618 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
谢谢你的客气话
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
11-23-2009, 08:48 AM | #619 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
|
11-23-2009, 08:52 AM | #620 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
+18 gazillion
__________________
Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature. |
|
11-23-2009, 03:16 PM | #621 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
"Turn it on" is a common phrase when discussing expensive technology that doesn't literally mean it costs $X to flip the switch. What they probably mean is that once you flip that switch, you've just committed to $X in electricity costs, $Y in operator costs (i.e. salary), $Z in insurance, $A in other staff, etc.... This is why it's sometimes cheaper to run the machine 3 days a week but 14 hours a day as opposed to 5 days a week but 8 hours a day. |
11-23-2009, 03:55 PM | #622 | ||||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
A very partisan, but informative, story on the WSJ opinion page about this health care bill. Here are some parts from it:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill - WSJ.com |
||||
11-23-2009, 03:59 PM | #623 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
When this passes, how long do I have with my parents before they are shipped off to death camps?
|
11-23-2009, 04:13 PM | #624 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
Comments like this show just how unwilling supporters of this bill are to have an honest debate about the real concerns surrounding this bill. It's much easier to use the 'kook of the month' catch phrase than to truly discuss the actual merits/downfalls of the legislation. |
|
11-23-2009, 04:17 PM | #625 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
We tried to have an honest debate, but opponents of health care reform brought up "death camps." Where was your outrage then? Quote:
Fixed for those who forget exactly how this "debate" began. Yet again you want Obama/Democrats to reach out and find common ground with groups not only diametrically opposed to their policy initiatives, but intent on being as obstructionist as possible in this matter. Which reminds me, I must have missed your posts criticizing those who disrupted the town halls this summer and exhorting the GOP in Congress to "have an honest debate about the real concerns surrounding this bill" with Obama & the Democrats. Perhaps you could link to some of your posts on this subject? Last edited by flere-imsaho : 11-23-2009 at 04:24 PM. |
||
11-23-2009, 04:18 PM | #626 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
|
Welp, this is what we get for them trying to ramrod this thing through as fast as they can. Something this big is not something that gets 'fixed' in a matter of a few months or all at once.
This is something that needs to be implemented in pieces over time. Way to go democrats and republicans, your incompetence is really shining through on this to a T!!
__________________
I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 |
11-23-2009, 04:27 PM | #627 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
The merits were discussed early on and the debate got turned to death panels, forced abortions, and people dying in our streets because they can't see doctors. You were conveniently missing with your outrage during that time. Last edited by RainMaker : 11-23-2009 at 04:29 PM. |
|
11-23-2009, 05:01 PM | #628 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
|
Quote:
I wasn't around when either Social Security or Medicare came into being, so I can't really speak to either of those. The 'phasing in' that I am refering to is, let's see if "X" works first before implementing anything else. Not, in 2011 this goes into effect, in 2012 this goes into effect and so on and so on regardless of it actually working. Big difference. Who is 'we' and what party? 50 to 60 years is not a good sign either (see my incompetence statement). I believe it is being ramrodded through, things are already being voted on.
__________________
I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 |
|
11-23-2009, 05:08 PM | #629 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
It's almost more like "kook of the week" at this point.
__________________
My listening habits |
|
11-23-2009, 06:26 PM | #630 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
|
Quote:
With something of this 'importance', yes, one piece at a time. Why would you not want to make sure things work before proceeding to the next phase? That is asinine thinking to just keep implementing things that could potentially create more problems than what already exists. If it takes years, then something is seriously wrong with the bill to begin with and should have never even come close to being passed. Yes, I am aware of how things work in Congress and am well aware of our history. However, this particular bill carries far more significance than most that have come across congresses eyes in recent years. You would think that the smart thing to do would be to think the whole thing out and a few months does not seem like this was well thought out at all. That's just my opinion though.
__________________
I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 |
|
11-23-2009, 07:57 PM | #631 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Additionally, Obama and the Dems say their final bill will be deficit neutral (I believe by CBO standards). Sure you had hypothesize and extrapolate all you want etc. and talk about downstream impacts and unintended circumstances ... but what basis do you have if (1) Dems proposes a deficit neutral plan (2) CBO agrees with it? |
|
11-23-2009, 08:16 PM | #632 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
If you believe the bill is revenue neutral then more power to you.
Let's pretend for a second that the legislation is revenue neutral. What does that mean? That just means that your taxes were raised high enough to cover the cost of the bill. There isn't one thing in the legislation that will actually lower costs. A public option won't lower anyone's costs. There are two outcomes: A. They compete on a level playing field with insurers and they spend the same amount of money on care that the private companies do. B. They legislate the reimbursements to providers, which in turn just causes the providers to go out of business or be bailed out by the government. The reason why the government can get away with setting low reimbursements on Medicare and Medicaid is because providers get the margin back with private insurers. If they didn't have the ability to negotiate reimbursements above Medicare there wouldn't be a hospital in this country that could keep it's doors open. Socialized medicine won't work with the population pattern we have in the Western world. Look at how quickly Germany's program is falling apart, and they are supposed to be the envy of the world. How anyone in the year 2009 thinks that the answer to their problems is the Federal Government is beyond me. The only way to believe that is to turn a blind eye to the history of our Congress and their spending. Last edited by lynchjm24 : 11-23-2009 at 08:17 PM. |
11-23-2009, 08:21 PM | #633 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
By their own calculations, this administration spent $787 billion dollars to 'create or save' 640,000 jobs.
1.2 million dollars per job and it's a good idea to give them trillions of dollars to 'fix' health care? |
11-23-2009, 08:33 PM | #634 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
You really think the $787B was just used to 'create or save" 640,000 jobs. You don't think there was any other benefit to this stimulus?
|
11-23-2009, 08:35 PM | #635 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
I don't think you can believe any sides numbers anymore when it comes to this stuff.
|
11-23-2009, 08:37 PM | #636 | |||
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
I tend to agree that deficit neutral means it won't save costs (nor increase them). But it will insure an additional 30M+ of uninsured. Pretty good bang for the buck. Quote:
It is easy to criticize. What is your solution? ... Quote:
Last edited by Edward64 : 11-23-2009 at 08:40 PM. |
|||
11-23-2009, 08:54 PM | #637 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
Quote:
If it were my administration that spent $787 billion dollars, I wouldn't brag about saving 640,000 jobs, which is exactly what they do on their website. If there are any other benefits, the people that spent the money haven't pointed them out to us. |
|
11-23-2009, 08:58 PM | #638 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
Quote:
You think that they are going to insure 30 million people without increasing 'costs'? Maybe if you define costs in a way that doesn't include taxes? Great for Canada and all. It can't and won't work here, and just because they prefer it, it doesn't make it better. I don't have a real solution, because there isn't one. I know that wasting 2 trillion dollars is not a solution. Last edited by lynchjm24 : 11-23-2009 at 08:59 PM. |
|
11-23-2009, 09:06 PM | #639 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
One, 40% of the stimulus was in tax cuts. Two, much of the spending hasn't happened yet. Three, yeah the job numbers are silly stupid. Better to stick to GDP changes which have very strong support amongst economists.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
11-23-2009, 09:06 PM | #640 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
So you do believe there were other benefits but that recovery.gov did not brag about it? or you beleive there were not any substantial additional benefits?
|
11-23-2009, 09:13 PM | #641 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Why won't it work here? All this negativity, it won't work, it can't work, it'll add to the deficit, but for you not to offer a solution (or support an alternative) seems pointless ... |
|
11-23-2009, 09:19 PM | #642 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
|
11-23-2009, 09:20 PM | #643 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
Quote:
So as long as it doesn't add to the deficit then it doesn't cost anything? That makes a ton of sense. |
|
11-23-2009, 09:24 PM | #644 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
If it is deficit neutral, by definition, it does not lower/add to our deficit. |
|
11-23-2009, 09:29 PM | #645 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
Quote:
A. Obama doesn't pass bills. B. Like I said if you believe the bill is deficit neutral then it makes a little more sense to support it. Maybe the tooth fairy will leave the extra trillions of dollars under Chris Dodd's pillow. |
|
11-23-2009, 09:31 PM | #646 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
I can see this discussion is going nowhere and will not be a productive discussion. You win.
|
11-23-2009, 09:38 PM | #647 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
Quote:
You can't have a discussion with someone who thinks that that legislation is deficit neutral. You'll probably 'win' because Congress is going to pass some disgusting tax and spend monstrosity that will further destroy the economy and do nothing to improve anyone's health. |
|
11-23-2009, 09:40 PM | #648 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
11-23-2009, 11:23 PM | #649 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
11-24-2009, 12:34 AM | #650 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Here's another article on the total cost of the health care bill - taken through the view on an opponent of the bill (James C. Capretta). It's pretty interesting - basically the plan is completely unsustainable over time. In order to hide this, they do the following:
1. Many of the benefits don't kick in until 2014, but the taxing starts in 2011 - giving three years of revenue taken from tax payers with no real benefit to show. 2. They are banking on cuts to medicare that Reid himself has voted against this year. Even for it to have a chance at not increasing the deficit, $450 billion in cuts to medicare for the first 10 years and $1.9 trillion in the next decade. 3. They are not indexing any of the taxes for inflation, meaning that many that are "for the rich" in 2014 (ie, 200K+) will be slamming the middle class in 2019. 4. No is looking at the cost from 2020 on to sustain this program. Because there are little cost savings in it, as the coverage increases the costs will as well. The nearly $2 trillion in cuts to medicare (as if that would happen) and non-indexed tax increases still won't keep the program afloat by 10-15 years down the road. This will mean even more tax increases. In the end, this is basically a shell game of the congress getting a 3-4 year head start on taxes before benefits kick in, "promising" to seriously cut medicare and non-indexing any tax hikes for inflation just to have a chance to still falls billions behind their promise (if they vote like Reid has the past 3-4 years). This plan is unsustainable financially and by the time people realize it, it will be relied upon as the private infrastructure will have been mostly gutted. We're basically going to have another "social security" albatross we can't pay for but can't cut by 2017/2018. Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|