Obama Care

[quote=firstdown;565972]Obama's plan is allready working (well not working that good) in Massachusetts but when I posted this in another thread people who argue for un health care seem to ignore post like this. I guess its hard to argue against facts of how its not working in Massachusetts when the numbers show its actually driving up cost and is now more then private ins. Then you just need to take a look at Ca. and their 26 billion in dept from social programs just like this but why let facts get in the way.

The proponents of the Massachusetts reforms
also promised that those reforms would
reduce health care costs. Governor Romney
said that “the cost of health care would be reduced”
and the plan would make health insurance
“affordable” for every Massachusetts citizen.


27

Supporters suggested that the reforms


would reduce the price of individual insurance

policies by 25–40 percent.



28

In reality, insurance premiums rose by 7.4

percent in 2007, 8–12 percent in 2008, and are
expected to rise 9 percent this year.



29 By comparison,


nationwide insurance costs rose by

6.1 percent in 2007, just 4.7 percent in 2008,
and are projected to increase 6.4 percent this
year.



30 On average, health insurance costs


$16,897 for a family of four in Massachusetts,


compared to $12,700 nationally.

31



Boy that sounds just like what the Dems and Obama are saying right now.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp112.pdf

I know this was not the best copy and paste but for the people who feel so strong about goverment run ins. why do you think it will be any different in cost then what happened here. Then just name a large federal programe that is not over budget or running in the negative. I just think we aill have the same results as Massachusetts.

You know common sense is subjective right?



Public defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_defender#Federal_Public_Defender_systems) done right is every bit as good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_defender#Comparison_of_state_and_Federal_PD _systems) as private defense. You knew this, right?
My cousin is a nurse at a veteran hospital in Phoenix AZ. She tells me they provide service comparable to that of the private sector and that they are behind none when it comes to bionics research. The most recent Survey of Veterans can be found here (http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/page.cfm?pg=5), my cousin might be full of shit and I'm you'll wade through it and tell me if you find something interesting, right?
McDonald's is really a bad example of a private company that sells quality products. They are in the business of cutting corners to maximize profits and their food is not fit to serve a dog. This is common sense and I am sure you understand where I am coming from, right?
For a brief moment I thought I knew what you were getting at but then I realized you and I don't think alike.

Your link "is every bit as good" is not talking about public defense vs private its talking about state vs federal public defense.

Your other links just talks about a survey with no actual numbers. The only number I saw was how long the survey would take.

I'm not sure I understand this post. If you're saying I can give more than a few inches, then you're right. I just don't want to. I'm not heartless. I want to help, but not to the extent that I'm on even par with the folks who are getting their tab picked up by Obama care.

I'm saying that you don't want to give a few more inches but you are when you pay your taxes and health insurance premium. Your choice is merely a perceived choice. You also think you're at the front of the line when you are not (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaideligibility/02_areyoueligible_.asp). People who show-up to the emergency room have to wait whether they have insurance or not and your wait time depends on the severity of your ailment. You will also note that most of the cost in uninsured care is in the emergency room care. If it is not an emergency but life threatening if not dealt with (i.e. a diabetic needing insulin) you still pay for it too.

You are just another number who happens to think he is special and fails to realize he is merely pushing the problem back to the emergency room.

Your link "is every bit as good" is not talking about public defense vs private its talking about state vs federal public defense.

Your other links just talks about a survey with no actual numbers. The only number I saw was how long the survey would take.

Try harder.

I'm saying that you don't want to give a few more inches but you are when you pay your taxes and health insurance premium. Your choice is merely a perceived choice. You also think you're at the front of the line when you are not (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaideligibility/02_areyoueligible_.asp). People who show-up to the emergency room have to wait whether they have insurance or not and your wait time depends on the severity of your ailment. You will also note that most of the cost in uninsured care is in the emergency room care. If it is not an emergency but life threatening if not dealt with (i.e. a diabetic needing insulin) you still pay for it too.

You are just another number who happens to think he is special and fails to realize he is merely pushing the problem back to the emergency room.

When I said, "cry me a river if you have to wait," I wasn't referring to the line at the ER. I was referring to things like surgeries/procedures/doctor appointments. If I'm insured and I break my arm, I certainly don't expect to get seen in the ER faster than some uninsured guy who just got shot or in a bad car accident.

As far as your comment about me thinking I'm special... Well, I've already broken my own Warpath rules enough by posting on this thread. So I'm not even going to go there with you.

Try harder.
All you have to do is read your link. The only place it talks about private vs public (that I found) was in the criticism section and that is filled with "citation needed" because there is nothing to back up what is said in that section. Like facts. Now please explain to us how Obama's plan will not end up like the one in Massachusetts and actually drive up cost?

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?
OK, just look at any large federal program and then you have your answer. SS running out of money, Medicare/Medicade in trouble, how about the bail out of car companies that still went out of business. We could also look at what has happened to the public school system ever sense the federal goverment got involved. How about the bad bill Bush passed on percription drugs which I believe has doubled in cost v/s what they said it would cost. I don't look at this as a rep v/s dem issue I look it as another thing the goverment is going to screw up. You say don't point to Canada but the Dems point to them when talking about cost and care. You say don't look at Mass. system but it has been said their system is close to Obama's plan and it makes perfect sense to see what's happening with their plan. What else do we have to look at when talking about national heath care? Maybe we should all just turn a blind eye and let them do what ever they want. I don't think Universal Health care will fail I just believe it will drive up cost (see the example in Mass) and the quality of care will go down.

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?

So don't
a) cite the current models as examples,
b) ask how they will prevent it from falling into the same traps that the models that are the basis for it fall into,

and do prove that it will be the same as what they are modeling it after.

Somehow your logic in this post baffles me.

So don't
a) cite the current models as examples,
b) ask how they will prevent it from falling into the same traps that the models that are the basis for it fall into,

and do prove that it will be the same as what they are modeling it after.

Somehow your logic in this post baffles me.

The point I was trying to make:

To say something is impossible, and basically shoot down every point of reason, and pretend we shouldn't even attempt something because of the possibility of failure is a lazy attitude, and one that is not conducive to progress.

For the record, I have no position on this matter, and I generally favor smaller government. I'm just sick of the defeatist attitude.