The President's Health Plan Won’t Cut the Budget Deficit

[Trinity]

So, one of the architects of the budget time bomb crafted during the Bush years is the best you can come up with?

If you can refute what he states in his article then have at it. :smile: Obama has his own budget time bomb according to the CBO.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Show me a place on the planet where his proposal has already proven itself effective.

Good luck!

 

[Industrialsize]

If only single payer worked *sigh* Don't you live in Mass Indy? Or you did...

You know hasn't worked. A 25 year old will take the $950 penalty (some pay it, some don't even bother) rather than pay $3500 for healthcare by mandate to keep more of his salary. But then if that 25 year old actually gets sick, because insurers can't deny coverage for preconditions, they have to cover all their bills.

The young who are supposed to be spreading out the costs of the ill and the elderly are adding to the costs through the regulation.

PatientPowerNow.org

​

Man oh man are you confused if you are comparing what we have in Massachusetts to a Single Payer system.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^lol... Next, we'll probably hear remarks about how the 'free market' in Alabama is so competitive and really allows 'consumers' to shop around for the best price when they're having that heart attack.

 

[Trinity]

Show me a place on the planet where his proposal has already proven itself effective.

Good luck!

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Man oh man are you confused if you are comparing what we have in Massachusetts to a Single Payer system.

The system doesn't work in MA and costs are out of control (single payer plans suffer the same fate). Medicare is bankrupt. Obama won't even claim to support single payer anymore.

There is confusion - but it's not with me.

 

[Industrialsize]

Do you even know what you are talking about?



The system doesn't work in MA and costs are out of control (single payer plans suffer the same fate). Medicare is bankrupt. Obama won't even claim to support single payer anymore.

There is confusion - but it's not with me.

Your post implied that we had single payer in massachusetts which we only have if you are 65, or a veteran(as they have in EVERY state).One thing that DOES work in Massachusetts is the Mass Health Connector. The Dreaded By the right wing, health care exchange. I am self employed and wish to sell my business and move out of State But i can't. No one would sell insurance to a 52 yo man with some chronic health problems that would either cover those problems and not be stratospherically expensive. I currently get my insurance at a group rate through our local chamber of Commerce. If i were to sell my business i could go to the Connector and purchase the same insurance for basically the same price. YOU CANNOT BE TURNED DOWN FOR ANY REASON. So right now I'm stuck in massachusetts. If we had a NATIONAL FEDERAL exchange,perferably one with a public option, I would not be stuck where I am. But I'd still rather do away with Private insurance that only treats my health as a commodity on which to make a profit, trash the entire system and institute a National Single payer System.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Do you even know what you are talking about?

What I asked was a simple question, but the problem is, it can't be answered because the only proposal on the table which includes measures which have already been proven effective in other healthcare systems in the real world is the plan the Dems have come up with. The plans coming from the right are based on theory and imagination.

The cold, hard truth that you refuse to accept is that there isn't a successful 'free market' healthcare system on the planet. It simply doesn't exist. The US is the only remaining country in the industrialized world still beating its head against the 'free market' wall, stubbornly believing that by removing profit from the system, we magically increase the resources available to treat people(Only Orwell could explain that one). Every single other industrialized nation on the planet has switched to one government administered model or another.

So again, thanks for the hot tip that the Obama plan isn't perfect. You're not telling anyone anything they didn't already know... But what you're also not telling anyone is how any competing proposal you favor for reform does better. Talk is cheap, and utopian theories of a free market paradise are for senile college professors. Come with something real, or don't waste our time.

 

[Trinity]

Your post implied that we had single payer in massachusetts which we only have if you are 65, or a veteran(as they have in EVERY state).

I was actually implying that each time we try to change from our current system to incorporate the mechanisms of universal coverage like MA, it doesn't work. I've stated many times that Medicare is bankrupt because of some of these same mechanisms.

One thing that DOES work in Massachusetts is the Mass Health Connector. The Dreaded By the right wing, health care exchange. I am self employed and wish to sell my business and move out of State But i can't. No one would sell insurance to a 52 yo man with some chronic health problems that would either cover those problems and not be stratospherically expensive. I currently get my insurance at a group rate through our local chamber of Commerce. If i were to sell my business i could go to the Connector and purchase the same insurance for basically the same price. YOU CANNOT BE TURNED DOWN FOR ANY REASON. So right now I'm stuck in massachusetts. If we had a NATIONAL FEDERAL exchange,perferably one with a public option, I would not be stuck where I am. But I'd still rather do away with Private insurance that only treats my health as a commodity on which to make a profit, trash the entire system and institute a National Single payer System.

I hear you. But Medicare is Bankrupt. Social Security is insolvent. The other countries you like to hold up as examples are experiencing major problems that we cannot afford. We are too much in debt. We must have a plan that won't break us.

There is no way to cover an additional 36 million people by cutting Medicare by 500 Billion. Obama's budgets are underestimated by 1 TRILLION Dollars. The Democrats refuse to pay for their spending.

Everybody wants the best healthcare for the least amount of money. A majority of Americans would support everything you stated if they thought it was possible.

The Federal Govt does not run programs well. Other countries can't control costs and sacrifice care. I'm not willing to take a chance on my healthcare. I'd rather address pre-conditions, and the ability to buy insurance across state lines and other options for the uninsured.

 

[finsuptx]

The article is clear and concise on the issues...if you can refute them then give it your best shot. When people can't...they just say Bush...which really doesn't work.

Yeah... Bush really didn't work. That's the first intelligent point you've ever made on this board!:wink:

 

[Industrialsize]

I was actually implying that each time we try to change from our current system to incorporate the mechanisms of universal coverage like MA, it doesn't work. I've stated many times that Medicare is bankrupt because of some of these same mechanisms.



I hear you. But Medicare is Bankrupt. Social Security is insolvent. The other countries you like to hold up as examples are experiencing major problems that we cannot afford. We are too much in debt. We must have a plan that won't break us.

There is no way to cover an additional 36 million people by cutting Medicare by 500 Billion. Obama's budgets are underestimated by 1 TRILLION Dollars. The Democrats refuse to pay for their spending.

Everybody wants the best healthcare for the least amount of money. A majority of Americans would support everything you stated if they thought it was possible.

The Federal Govt does not run programs well. Other countries can't control costs and sacrifice care. I'm not willing to take a chance on my healthcare. I'd rather address pre-conditions, and the ability to buy insurance across state lines and other options for the uninsured.

I'm not willing to leave 36 million people(your number, it;s actually higher) with NO ACCESS to health insurance. You can't continue to say "We have the best health care in the world" when we keep so many uninsured.

 

[deleted15807]

You can't continue to say "We have the best health care in the world" when we keep so many uninsured.

Why avoid the obvious? They do not care about the have nots. Why worry about them? Giving them health insurance will discourage them from working just like welfare discourages people from working.

 

[Trinity]

What I asked was a simple question, but the problem is, it can't be answered because the only proposal on the table which includes measures which have already been proven effective in other healthcare systems in the real world is the plan the Dems have come up with. The plans coming from the right are based on theory and imagination.

He, or the author of the article didn't present a plan. So your question wasn't simple. It was a little out of left field.

And I disagree with you. None of Obamacare - his many proposals or the Democratic Bills have been proven effective in other healthcare systems. Other systems around the world have been able to achieve universal coverage but they have not been able to contain costs which threatens everyone's health and coverage.

The cold, hard truth that you refuse to accept is that there isn't a successful 'free market' healthcare system on the planet. It simply doesn't exist. The US is the only remaining country in the industrialized world still beating its head against the 'free market' wall, stubbornly believing that by removing profit from the system, we magically increase the resources available to treat people(Only Orwell could explain that one). Every single other industrialized nation on the planet has switched to one government administered model or another.

Actually you replace it with massive bureaucracy that is expensive and doesn't control costs.

So again, thanks for the hot tip that the Obama plan isn't perfect. You're not telling anyone anything they didn't already know... But what you're also not telling anyone is how any competing proposal you favor for reform does better. Talk is cheap, and utopian theories of a free market paradise are for senile college professors. Come with something real, or don't waste our time.

Sure, I did. I said what a majority of Americans have said. Start Over or leave it alone because Obama and the Dems' plan will collapse our economy and threaten our healthcare - Not make it better.

The only way we will be able to add all uninsured to Medicare is if we can afford it. Currently we can't and Obama did NOT present a feasible proposal or bill to show us how we can.

Obama needs to address health insurance reform - pre-conditions, life time limits, annual limits, tort reform, and incentivising for improved health outcomes and group pools.

States are slowly going bankrupt. Banks are going bankrupt and being taken over by the FDIC. The Dems refuse to pay for 10 Billion dollar under pay go.

Obama and the Dems have the utopian theory...with nothing to back it up. It didn't work in MA.

 

[Trinity]

I'm not willing to leave 36 million people(your number, it;s actually higher) with NO ACCESS to health insurance. You can't continue to say "We have the best health care in the world" when we keep so many uninsured.

Actually I only said 36 million because that's all Obama's plan was supposed to cover. We have already had this discussion about how many make up the uninsured...I know how many.

I'm not willing to mess up healthcare for everybody and damage our economy just to pass Obama's mess of bills.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^Which is why the country kicked the 'leaders' out of power who agreed with you and did nothing to address the problem.

He, or the author of the article didn't present a plan.

WOW! You finally figured out why this guy's BS is a waste of time!

Now you're on way to actually understanding more than your own perspective, and knowing is half the battle!

Like I said, come back to us when you've got something to discuss that is actually BETTER than what is currently planned.

 

[Industrialsize]

Actually I only said 36 million because that's all Obama's plan was supposed to cover. We have already had this discussion about how many make up the uninsured...I know how many.

I'm not willing to mess up healthcare for everybody and damage our economy just to pass Obama's mess of bills.

SO, you've got your insurance, to hell with the uninsured, they don't matter as much as ME.

 

[maxcok]

Why avoid the obvious? They do not care about the have nots. Why worry about them? Giving them health insurance will discourage them from working just like welfare discourages people from working.

Or discourage them from dying like the worthless trash they are.

SO, you've got your insurance, to hell with the uninsured, they don't matter as much as ME.

The mantra of the morally bankrupt Right - in all things economic social and political.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

The only way we will be able to add all uninsured to Medicare is if we can afford it. Currently we can't and Obama did NOT present a feasible proposal or bill to show us how we can.

Ah, so we're back to this argument that 'we' can't afford to cover everyone (strange assertion, considering that every single other industrialized nation on the planet CAN afford to cover everyone, but I digress on that point for now)


Please specifically define who "we" is in your statement.

 

[maxcok]

The Doc Fix and Cadillac Tax

Who has the job of making up these titles? Are they passed out with the morning's talking points? Hilarious!

. . . . Please specifically define who "we" is in your statement.

Dude, I am tellin you, the Holy Hydra will never answer that question. Never has, never will.
Here.

Wait... I could have swore I saw you sing this on stage before. But the words were much different...

Too funny! The piano trio was a nice touch. LMFAO!!!

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^Well then Trinity can't expect people to understand her points if she won't define her terms. It's improper and confusing to use a pronoun without first identifying the subject by name.

If I was telling you a story about a politician, and I kept saying "he" did this or that, nobody is ever going to know which politician I am talking about, because I never said who "he" is. It could be Obama, it could be Mitch McConnell, it could be anyone, because I never said.


Trinity, who is "we" in your remarks?

 

[maxcok]

Good luck with that.

I'm tellin you, they're not real big on defining terms. Or logic, for that matter.