Obama Care

Show me a credible source that says 9%. But i do get your point, it's a difference in philosophy. But say healtcare was fully govt. provided. Using these figures (http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/03/a-detailed-anal.html), there is an annual cost of $65 billion to the 138 million U.S. taxpayers. That's a per payer cost (not "per citizen") of $471 per year. I don't know too many people that are going to go bankrupt over that figure. I know it's a simplistic approach, but you see my point.

The 9% was just a single-digit number. Nothing factual or anything. My point with the taxes really is that even a "small" tax increase is :

a) not small to everyone
b) one step towards the next "small" tax increases for whatever the flavor of the day idea is.

Those "small" tax increases are the reason we pay so much money for the things that you yourself stated were ridiculous. At some point taxing for more programs has to stop. At least we need to get right the programs we already tax for. maybe if we did that thenw e wouldn't have to raise taxes at all. I'd love to have a great health care system that worked great and efficient for all. Unfortunately I'd have to ride a unicorn to get to that magical fairy land where they have such utopian things. I prefer to fix the capitalistic disaster we currently have. With real changes, not window dressing that could make things worse according to just about anyone who knows anything about health care.

That's just it, it's not about "me paying for my clitorectamy" dipshit. Abject stupidity is always good for getting a rise out of me. It's about realizing that there are those that for a multitude of socio-economic reasons do not have access to healthcare. That's a problem, period. With the GDP we have, there is no excuse for that. And as far as your foreign policy ideas, look over your own post history. The attitude of "me first" is at the root of most of what's wrong with this country.

Stop! You have to stop! My face is going to start bleeding burgundy if you don't stop making me laugh. My co-workers are staring at me.

Really, I don't need to look over my past posts to know my own opinion. It doesn't change from day to day like a politicians. I don't think we should bomb everyone. That would be bad for business, just Bin Laden.

Socio-economic reasons? Save the college-speak. You mean they're poor. Is it that you don't have the balls to go out and help them yourself? Do you just want the government to tax everyone so you will not have to get your hands dirty? How about you take your own money and time down to the local food shelter and serve up spaghetti? How about you go and volunteer at the local state hospital? Perhaps you'll just leave that up to someone else?

Who is we? My GDP is next to nothing. What makes you think I can afford to give even more money to help someone else?

You really think that these oligarchs are going to cut the military? HA HA HA Not when they're getting fat from the contracts. It will be the same for national health care. I've got a five spot that says I'm right. Who wants in?

The 9% was just a single-digit number. Nothing factual or anything. My point with the taxes really is that even a "small" tax increase is :

a) not small to everyone
b) one step towards the next "small" tax increases for whatever the flavor of the day idea is.

Those "small" tax increases are the reason we pay so much money for the things that you yourself stated were ridiculous. At some point taxing for more programs has to stop. At least we need to get right the programs we already tax for. maybe if we did that thenw e wouldn't have to raise taxes at all. I'd love to have a great health care system that worked great and efficient for all. Unfortunately I'd have to ride a unicorn to get to that magical fairy land where they have such utopian things. I prefer to fix the capitalistic disaster we currently have. With real changes, not window dressing that could make things worse according to just about anyone who knows anything about health care.

Damn, and i was thinking of enlisting the leprechauns to help us out. Seriously though, of course there are going to be abuses/corruption. That's life, just as there are no doubt inefficiencies in the private sector which contribute to the current ridiculous cost of health care. But to be as advanced as we are, and not to have something in place is inexcusable. Our priorities are grossly skewed. We spend incredible amounts of money on far less important things, as I've previously pointed out. There are always going to be excuses to not do something of this nature, but at some point we as a country to realize the fundamental nature of healthcare and ensure every person in the country has access to it. I don't see that as imaginary, fairy tale stuff, i just see it as a shift in policy.

47 million (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php), but then you have to believe those bastards at the Census Bureau.

Sorry thats not a correct number. That is a random number they use because the real number of people who cannot get coverage or afford coverage is much smaller. Heck that number includes illegals in the US.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uninsured_in_the_United_States&action=edit&section=1)] Who are the uninsured?

The US Census Bureau annually reports statistics on the uninsured. According to its most recent figures, in 2007, nearly 37 million of the uninsured were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 27 million worked at least part time. Approximately 61% of the roughly 45 million uninsured live in households with incomes under $50,000 (13.5 million below $25,000 and 14.5 million at $25,000 to $49,000).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Census_2007-0) And 38% live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more (8.5 million at $50,000 to $74,999 and 9.1 million at $75,000 or more.
According to the Census Bureau, people of Hispanic origin were the most affected by being uninsured; nearly a third of Hispanics lack health insurance. However, this rate decreased slightly from 2006 to 2007, from 15.3 to 14.8 million, a decrease of 2 percentage points (34.1% to 32.1%). The state with the highest percentage of uninsured was Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) (24.1% average for three years, 2004-2006). New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico) has the second highest percentage of residents without health insurance at 22%.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2)
It has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3) An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Bloomberg-4) A recent study concluded that 15% of people shopping online for health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of a pre-existing condition, or for being overweight. This label does not necessarily mean they can never get health insurance, but that they will not qualify for standard individual coverage. People with similar health status can be covered via employer-provided health insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid

For the entire article:
Uninsured in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States)

One other thing BB is 65 billion just to fix the uninsured?

Stop! You have to stop! My face is going to start bleeding burgundy if you don't stop making me laugh. My co-workers are staring at me.

Really, I don't need to look over my past posts to know my own opinion. It doesn't change from day to day like a politicians. I don't think we should bomb everyone. That would be bad for business, just Bin Laden.

Socio-economic reasons? Save the college-speak. You mean they're poor. Is it that you don't have the balls to go out and help them yourself? Do you just want the government to tax everyone so you will not have to get your hands dirty? How about you take your own money and time down to the local food shelter and serve up spaghetti? How about you go and volunteer at the local state hospital? Perhaps you'll just leave that up to someone else?

Who is we? My GDP is next to nothing. What makes you think I can afford to give even more money to help someone else?

You really think that these oligarchs are going to cut the military? HA HA HA Not when they're getting fat from the contracts. It will be the same for national health care. I've got a five spot that says I'm right. Who wants in?

If so, then you should be agreeing with me. Since it is apparently the only way your broke ass is going to get healthcare. Also, i'm no pharmacist, but what exactly are the medicinal properties of spaghetti and meatballs?

Please give me a time were a president made a national speach about passing something this big when the opposition was not allowed a rebuttal after the speech or town hall meeting. This is also the president who keeps saying he is so bipartisan in what he does.

Is it just about the speech and/or the issue of health care? Surely you don't need me to find proof of past Presidents and candidates censoring the questions they're asked? Or, is it not the censoring of questions, but the censoring of television ads? Seems like a silly thing to get upset over -- TV broadcasters have always chosen which ads to air, and which not to. This will not change.

Keep in mind, ABC is a private corporation and has no obligation to air any ads whatsoever. Like saden said, Fox has every right to oppose the President whenever they want, for whatever they want. I'm sure you'll hear plenty of opposition from Fox in the days (weeks? months?) following the speech. I'm sure you've already heard much opposition on the matter.

Anyone who wants to seek opposing viewpoints, and/or think critically can do so. The exclusion of opposing ads will not prevent that. Perhaps you just want opposing ads to influence the people who are not critical thinkers, and will not seek opposing viewpoints on their own? Perhaps what you want is "fair and balanced" propaganda?

Sorry thats not a correct number. That is a random number they use because the real number of people who cannot get coverage or afford coverage is much smaller. Heck that number includes illegals in the US.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uninsured_in_the_United_States&action=edit&section=1)] Who are the uninsured?

The US Census Bureau annually reports statistics on the uninsured. According to its most recent figures, in 2007, nearly 37 million of the uninsured were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 27 million worked at least part time. Approximately 61% of the roughly 45 million uninsured live in households with incomes under $50,000 (13.5 million below $25,000 and 14.5 million at $25,000 to $49,000).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Census_2007-0) And 38% live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more (8.5 million at $50,000 to $74,999 and 9.1 million at $75,000 or more.
According to the Census Bureau, people of Hispanic origin were the most affected by being uninsured; nearly a third of Hispanics lack health insurance. However, this rate decreased slightly from 2006 to 2007, from 15.3 to 14.8 million, a decrease of 2 percentage points (34.1% to 32.1%). The state with the highest percentage of uninsured was Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) (24.1% average for three years, 2004-2006). New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico) has the second highest percentage of residents without health insurance at 22%.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2)
It has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3) An estimated 5 million of those without health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of pre-existing conditions.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Bloomberg-4) A recent study concluded that 15% of people shopping online for health insurance are considered "uninsurable" because of a pre-existing condition, or for being overweight. This label does not necessarily mean they can never get health insurance, but that they will not qualify for standard individual coverage. People with similar health status can be covered via employer-provided health insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid

For the entire article:
Uninsured in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States)

One other thing BB is 65 billion just to fix the uninsured?

A random number is 22, because I just made it up. Let's look at your numbers though, at the minimum the correct "firstdown adjusted" figure would be just over 27 million American citizens. You're comfortable with that? Really?

btw- 304,000,000 total population * .089 (8.9% from above) ≈ 27 m uninsured.

You're the healthcare expert, and I'll defer to that knowledge. That said, isn't prevention generally cheaper than emergency care? Example: Isn't catching a potential cardio vascular problem in the early stages and correcting for it through a diet and exercise regimen is most likely more cost effective than waiting until open heart surgery is required?

Generally it is, yes. Per your example, you're much worse off financially by never seeing a doctor then having a massive coronary and going in for open heart surgery than you are by seeing a doctor on a routine basis, monitoring your cholesterol, getting the occasional EKG, and having a minor interventional procedure. Regular colonoscopies, prostate screenings, and mammograms are also much more cost effective in the long run for the same reasons.

All these preventative treatments are part of health plans and are covered. Medicaid and Medicare cover them as well. And of course all emergency services are covered. These should be covered, I'm glad they are, and under any plan they should continue to be covered.

However, when people say "quality care", in the minds of many it invokes the use of the most advanced pharmaceuticals and procedures in the name of preventative medicine. Well often times there is no evidence to suggest that these new methods are any better than the old tried and true methods that older physicians like to employ. This is where the evidence-based piece needs to lend common sense to the system. There needs to be evidence that a very costly procedure offers significantly better results than a less expensive procedure, or it should not be covered. Currently Medicare and Medicaid cover these treatments, and they absolutely should not.

Further, "quality care" in the minds of many means getting treatment for friggin pimples or something and having that covered. My overall feeling is:

1) If it's life threatening (ie emergent), it should be covered.
2) If it's proven to reduce cost of treatment in the long run while at the same time proven to prevent premature death or disability, it should be covered.
3) Otherwise, you're on your own.

This means in my model, say goodbye to pain management, say goodbye to any drug or procedure not proven to be better than a routine checkup by Dr. McGillicutty, say goodbye to treatment for superficial health concerns like skin irritations and other non-health threatening things, and say goodbye to antibiotics for the sake of treating sinus infections because they go away on their own. No more coverage for drug rehab programs, because if you were dumb enough to get addicted in the first place then you're on your own. No more coverage for psychiatric visits due to "stress and fatigue" - it's called stop effing whining about your life. If you want those things, you should pay extra on an a la carte basis.

So as you can see by the above post, a whole hell of a lot goes into defining what "quality healthcare" means. Does it mean covering every little thing so I don't have to worry about anything? Or does it mean covering what I need to live as long and healthy a life as can reasonably be expected?

A random number is 22, because I just made it up. Let's look at your numbers though, at the minimum the correct "firstdown adjusted" figure would be just over 27 million American citizens. You're comfortable with that? Really?
Are you comfortable spending 65 billion because thats about 2 billion per person if we use a realistic number of around 30 million who cannot afford health coverage.

I'm not one of those who just blindly blames W for everything and takes every opportunity to bash the right (mainly because I lean right), but, in the interest of fairness here....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/national/01ads.html?_r=1