Obama Care

aaaaaannnnddd were out. Saden is back to his dodge, avoid, deny. So close to actual self realization and he backs out.

Nope. Never been the problem and never been the assertion. Solve the problem in something approaching a cost effective manner and everybody on this board would go with you. Don't solve it or create a solution so expensive as it is doomed to fail, and no one backs it.

aaaaannd you're not interested coming up with a solution of your own and only capable of pointing out what you think won't work. Why don't you just say "can't do it, why bother?" and save some bandwidth?

You're also not comfortable with holding all the players to the same standard interms of cost effectiveness. Plus cost effectiveness is subjective. I'm willing to pay more in taxes to get the benefit of covering as many people as possible and you folks are not, thus wanting to keep more of your money.

But what if those numbers are correct, or pretty close. I would say that changes the health care discussion, correct?

Assuming, big monstrous assumption here, it would change to something along the lines of I still want universal health care and this what we aught to do:



Get those who are eligible but not enrolled covered and inform them of their ability to get basic heath care.
Force those making over 50K to sign up. No saving money on the side and asking us to bail them out when they have an emergency. If our savings rate is any indication these fools most likely don't have enough money to pay for a costly surgery.
Get those short-term uninsured covered so they wouldn't worry about getting sick or having to pay for health care while unemployed.

aaaaannd you're not interested coming up with a solution of your own and only capable of pointing out what you think won't work. Why don't you just say "can't do it, why bother?" and save some bandwidth?

You're also not comfortable with holding all the players to the same standard interms of cost effectiveness. Plus cost effectiveness is subjective. I'm willing to pay more in taxes to get the benefit of covering as many people as possible and you folks are not, thus wanting to keep more of your money.

How much Saden? How much does the magic wallet have to come up with? Is there any price too high? It's not "a no pain no gain" issue. It's a "how much pain for how much gain" issue?

Again, I have asserted that effective health care reform must first address cost. I have suggested ways in which this could be done. Essentially, I think we need to create a worker's comp equivalent for malpractice. You pooh poohed this w/out understanding the way it shifts liability and its effect on costs. I have also asked Schneed what the costs involved in expanding medicaid to cover those currently uninsured. Not sure if its feasible but, in combination with loweiring litigation and malpractice costs - I wonder if there is a way to move in this direction. Schneed has also pointed out in the Healthcare Info thread that, in some cases, the competition for patients actually drives up costs and has suggested that, if this could be addressed, it may be an effective way of cost reduction.

I have consistently stated that, if Obama can find a way to lower costs and maintain quality, I will pay an extra 10% on top of my current premium to ensure that every U.S. citizen receives basic health care. (You asked me at one point what decrease in quality of care I am willing to accept - as to me, if everyone gets basic care, I am willing to suffer a decrease in care. Howerver, as to my kids, I have a zero tolerance for decline).

Others have also indicated that additional taxes would be acceptable if the end result is an effective system. However, a wealth transference in an already out of wack system simply feeds the beast and doesn't address teh underlying problem of spiraling costs.

What is your suggestion to control costs b/c it is my firm belief that effective health care reform starts there. Oh wait, in your mind, costs in the health care market are irrelevant to Aunt Jane and Uncle Joe and the government's ability to intervene.

aaaaannd you're not interested coming up with a solution of your own and only capable of pointing out what you think won't work. Why don't you just say "can't do it, why bother?" and save some bandwidth?

You're also not comfortable with holding all the players to the same standard interms of cost effectiveness. Plus cost effectiveness is subjective. I'm willing to pay more in taxes to get the benefit of covering as many people as possible and you folks are not, thus wanting to keep more of your money.

You keep saying this Saden, and that is great. Honest. But you have yet to ever answer the questions on the deficit and debt in any way that remotely brings down the debt. If we can get government reduced and fiscally sound, then lets do that first, and then we can shift the priorities to universal healthcare.

Suppose we stridently reduce our military, lets say to 50% of current outlays, would you also be willing to forego new UHC expenses, and freeze other social expenditures for 2-4 years to try to atleast hold the line against the debt? And by freeze, I mean just that no cola adjustments, no automatic increases, a hard freeze. No government agency's discretionary budget could receive a penny more in real dollars for up to 4 years, so if the Dept Of Education's budget this year is 46.2 billion dollars, then the budget for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 would be 46.2 billion dollars. Perhaps add an emergency clause requiring a supermajority approval could be added, but it would have to be a per case basis, not an omnibus gargantuan bill. So if the Dept of Ed had an emergency need for a 1 year raise in cost they could apply for that but at the end of the year the next years budget would be staked at the 46.2billion dollars.)

I would. And, I have stated before that I would be willing to reduce the standing Army (not AF/Navy) to 1/3(or less) of it's current size, and enforce 2yr mandatory service (and ya know I just realized if we mandated 2yrs of service, think of all the 18-20yr olds who currently don't have healthcare who would then have 2 years access to military hospitals! further we could extend the 2yrs access to 4yrs access at military healthcare locations, and have our countries youth covered from 18-22yrs old. Is that a Win Win or what!)

Maybe we could include hospitals as an option for mandatory service requirements. Schneed''s discussions seems to have said we need to increase the medical labor pool, so perhaps you could choose to serve the country in hospitals, I am sure many would then go further in the health care field.

If we could reduce the military, and reduce the debt (not the deficit) than we could seriously look at ways to bring about UHC.

But please stop saying you would accept a raise in taxes, as if your taxes somehow will cover our 11.6Trillion dollar debt.

...I'm willing to pay more in taxes to get the benefit of covering as many people as possible and you folks are not, thus wanting to keep more of your money.

Further, I pay $6500 dollars in Federal income tax a year(obv. not including SS/Medicare/State), if I pay the government $7500 a year, or $8000 a year, it's not gonna make a dent in the 11.6Trillion dollar debt. Assuming you are not making 33Trillion dollars a year, your tax hit isn't gonna wipe the debt out either. I am sure your tax hit is noticeably more than mine, but seriously in terms of a 1.8trillion dollar projected deficit, it still aint squat. (even if you Are Bill Gates)

Balance the budget by any means necessary. Stop Deficit spending on both sides of the aisle. Protect our children's future, and then we can work together to make healthcare for the least fortunate a possibility.

I have not read every post, but where do the illegal aliens fit into this equation?

I have not read every post, but where do the illegal aliens fit into this equation?

well my understanding is that the MIB squad collects tariffs on every alien that lands on Earth, so they really should be covered. I also believe they need different medical needs than us humans ;)

At this point I would like to submit for a "special ban" request!

One problem we would face if the Fed's created a UHC program would be Debt. We currently have 38 million seniors < most recieving SS & MC > , by 2050 will have an estimated 86 million ,, Senior Citizens Facts Provided by Census Bureau for Older American Month (http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SeniorStats/5-04-25SeniorFacts.htm) . Canada has 33 million citizens we have 300 million , I just do not see a Gov't agency being able to run/fund a program this huge . We do need improvements , I just don't see how UHC would be sustainable or how we could fund it considering the growing number of people who will be drawing on SS & MC .

LOL, yeah I guess I'm doomed. What a terrible way to think, huh? I'm so dysfunctional. :doh:

Pretty much. Instead of some fairyland fantasy utopia you should consider taking a long hard look at the real world. Seems like everyone else in this thread at least a has firm grasp on reality.