Can the US afford socialized medicine?

[Troublemane]

To my line of reasoning helping the poor is a good work, it's worthwhile whilst war is not - no matter the economic value of the assets seized.

True, but the people running the show aren't interested in equality, or helping people, only in maintaining their power. Its called the 'military-industrial complex'.

I find it strange that you directed me to "report from iron mountain" a satirical report that it's author as declared a spoof, according to the wiki on it.

its no spoof, although there are plenty of people who would like us to think it was. A researcher who was asked to be on the panel wrote about his experience, and attested to its authenticity.
John Kenneth Galbraith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People do lay down their liberties and money and time for public programs, it's called volunteering and charity work, quite a big economy... not as big as the war economy I'll grant you, but to my thinking FAR more valuable.

Ya, but it's voluntary. I've volunteered with Habitat for Humanity, and Campfire for Kids. I don't believe its right to force someone to give their time for charity. That's when it stops being charity, and becomes fascism.

 

[Troublemane]

fact is, I am completely in agreement that healthcare costs need to be reduced. But will the bill that just passed do the trick?

I don't believe it will. I think the increasing deficit spending by Congress, which required them to raise the debt ceiling to above 12 trillion, is totally irresponsible in these economic times. So when they say the healthcare bill is going to reduce the deficit? When it was they who cranked it up so insanely high?..it won't even make a dent in what they have spent already! Not by a longshot.

Please. How can I trust em? They are such liars they don't have a clue how transparent their lies are.

 

[Autodidact]

I call em liars because they flat out said this bill will be a huge cut in the deficit. Then it turns out the US debt to GDP ratio will hit 63% this year, and if spending is not reigned in, will hit 90% in this decade. The bill cost 850 billion, and is only predicted to reduce the deficit, and then only regarding healthcare expenditures by the government. The fact is, the GDP is going to keep dropping in relation to our debt, and the only thing the gov will continue to do (if it continues down this line of creating healthcare entitlements), is go ever deeper into debt.

governments cannot create money. They can only seize it.

....those 2.3 trillion dollars going to healthcare, do you know how much of it is from the public sector?....and how much from private citizens?

How much was paid for by taxpayers, and how much by individuals and insurance companies?

Just want to clarify that you're claiming that the independent, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the same people you're getting your figures from, for some reason are lying about this issue. I think that tells us all we need to know about your claims.

 

[Autodidact]

fact is, I am completely in agreement that healthcare costs need to be reduced. But will the bill that just passed do the trick?

I don't believe it will. I think the increasing deficit spending by Congress, which required them to raise the debt ceiling to above 12 trillion, is totally irresponsible in these economic times. So when they say the healthcare bill is going to reduce the deficit? When it was they who cranked it up so insanely high?..it won't even make a dent in what they have spent already! Not by a longshot.

Please. How can I trust em? They are such liars they don't have a clue how transparent their lies are.

Well I'm sure you know much better than the Congressional Budget Office, because of your high degree of expertise and professional dedication to legislative analysis and accounting.

 

[Troublemane]

Hey, I am not the one claiming it will work. You have the burden of proving it will work, not me. I am telling you that on the one hand the CBO is saying it will work, and on the other, the Treasury is saying the debt is climbing to crisis levels.

If you have so much faith in this, by all means, let it ride. But if your goal is to convince me I am wrong, then you have to do better than snidely insult me. The burden is on you to show me how it will work, because frankly I have no faith in politicians.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see why people do not even want to give this a chance. It works in plenty of other nations, and people live longer, healthier lives and the cost of health care is about half as much. Under this bill, if an insurance company raises there premiums because someone has a preexisting condition, then they have to raise it for everyone, which means they will loose customers. Saying they will just raise premiums is not a valid reason, because they already have a rocket attached to their prices, and that rocket is showing no signs of slowing down. My own premium went up 25%, before the health care bill was signed, and I simply could not afford the plan I had so I had to drop down to a plan that cost what my old plan costed, and it only covers 15 dollars for an office visit, 400 for a specialist, and I had a 500 dollar copay for surgery. In just three months I have racked up over 1500 dollars worth of medical bills, and I have insurance. Oh, and my insurance will not cover anything while I am on medical leave because they expect someone with no income to still pay 40 dollars a week to continue their coverage.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It certainly couldn't hurt to try the new bill. The old system obviously isn't working.

 

[Autodidact]

Hey, I am not the one claiming it will work. You have the burden of proving it will work, not me. I am telling you that on the one hand the CBO is saying it will work, and on the other, the Treasury is saying the debt is climbing to crisis levels.

If you have so much faith in this, by all means, let it ride. But if your goal is to convince me I am wrong, then you have to do better than snidely insult me. The burden is on you to show me how it will work, because frankly I have no faith in politicians.

Here's the deal: The bill sucks. It's a minimal, reasonable, initial attempt at reigning int he worst abuses of the insurance industry, the best we could get passed Congress that is practically owned by them, and if we can't take at least these baby steps, we're doomed.

 

[Magic Man]

fact is, I am completely in agreement that healthcare costs need to be reduced. But will the bill that just passed do the trick?

I don't believe it will. I think the increasing deficit spending by Congress, which required them to raise the debt ceiling to above 12 trillion, is totally irresponsible in these economic times. So when they say the healthcare bill is going to reduce the deficit? When it was they who cranked it up so insanely high?..it won't even make a dent in what they have spent already! Not by a longshot.

Please. How can I trust em? They are such liars they don't have a clue how transparent their lies are.

I know it must be tough to respond to, but it would be nice, if when I correct you, you'd acknowledge it, instead of just ignoring what I say because it doesn't fit your misguided hatred of anything non-conservative.

There are two different things, both of which you've railed against. There's universal (socialized) healthcare, and there's the bill that was passed. Most of us agree that the bill that was passed was nothing great. But you don't stop there. My problem isn't that you have a problem with the bill; it's that you have a problem with "socialized healthcare". The even bigger problem is that you conflate the two.

 

[Troublemane]

Here's the deal: The bill sucks. It's a minimal, reasonable, initial attempt at reigning int he worst abuses of the insurance industry, the best we could get passed Congress that is practically owned by them, and if we can't take at least these baby steps, we're doomed.

Ok i hear ya. You are saying its just a first step toward reigning in the costs, and over time it will get better. I guess I am not just that optimistic. I would much rather see government in a strictly regulatory role, and do things concrete like, say, pass a law which forbids a bank to also handle insurance. So the insurer can't use the bank's assets to artificially raise its solvency, while they refuse coverage, just to give themselves bonuses at the end of the year. That to me is plain wrong.

That's what I would like to see. Less baby steps, something more definite. To me the baby steps seem like prolonging the gravy train, while using the Fed to keep injecting new money into the system to make it seem like the corpse is alive.:thud:

 

[Autodidact]

Ok i hear ya. You are saying its just a first step toward reigning in the costs, and over time it will get better. I guess I am not just that optimistic. I would much rather see government in a strictly regulatory role, and do things concrete like, say, pass a law which forbids a bank to also handle insurance. So the insurer can't use the bank's assets to artificially raise its solvency, while they refuse coverage, just to give themselves bonuses at the end of the year. That to me is plain wrong.

That's what I would like to see. Less baby steps, something more definite. To me the baby steps seem like prolonging the gravy train, while using the Fed to keep injecting new money into the system to make it seem like the corpse is alive.:thud:

Hey, I wanted single payer, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

 

[dawny0826]

You want to know how we would pay for socialized medicine, or for the recent legislation, which has nothing to do with socialized medicine, unfortunately?

I'd like to know how socialized medicine would be paid for. I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around how this would work.

 

[Troublemane]

I know it must be tough to respond to, but it would be nice, if when I correct you, you'd acknowledge it, instead of just ignoring what I say because it doesn't fit your misguided hatred of anything non-conservative.

There are two different things, both of which you've railed against. There's universal (socialized) healthcare, and there's the bill that was passed. Most of us agree that the bill that was passed was nothing great. But you don't stop there. My problem isn't that you have a problem with the bill; it's that you have a problem with "socialized healthcare". The even bigger problem is that you conflate the two.

Sory Mball, I wasn't ignoring you. I just have a one-track mind, I can't have more than one discussion at a time.

To answer your points, the healthcare bill is not socialism, its a travesty, IMO. Socialism would be bad enough as it is, at this time, because taking money that isn't there and creating a whole new set of entitlements is not going to help the deficit, all it will do is drive up inflation and keep the economy in a deep freeze. It's the wrong time to do this. But I get the impression the Dems went in thinking this was their one and only issue to get passed and they were damned, come hell or high water, etc, they were getting it passed!...so, because they were so determined to get something through, THIS is what came out of it. Some kind of 'forced' universal coverage by forcing people to get their own insurance, and then offerring to roll those into Medicaid who can't afford it...like anyone wants to be in Medicaid? Like, it would be better to just not have health insurance and pay out of pocket, than have to deal with Medicaid.

Like rather saw your arm off without novacaine, than have to deal with Medicaid...

This is the bill which the Dems went to so much trouble, and risked their political necks on. Wowie. Guess we will find out come November what the people think of it. I am laying money it will not be a big win for the Dems.:no:

 

[Troublemane]

I am still curious to know, however, if anyone has the numbers...how much of the 2.3 trillion last year that was spent on "Healthcare", was spent with public funds (by taxpayers), and how much by private citizens/insurers?

 

[Magic Man]

Sory Mball, I wasn't ignoring you. I just have a one-track mind, I can't have more than one discussion at a time.

Not a problem.

To answer your points, the healthcare bill is not socialism, its a travesty, IMO. Socialism would be bad enough as it is, at this time, because taking money that isn't there and creating a whole new set of entitlements is not going to help the deficit, all it will do is drive up inflation and keep the economy in a deep freeze. It's the wrong time to do this. But I get the impression the Dems went in thinking this was their one and only issue to get passed and they were damned, come hell or high water, etc, they were getting it passed!...so, because they were so determined to get something through, THIS is what came out of it. Some kind of 'forced' universal coverage by forcing people to get their own insurance, and then offerring to roll those into Medicaid who can't afford it...like anyone wants to be in Medicaid? Like, it would be better to just not have health insurance and pay out of pocket, than have to deal with Medicaid.

Like rather saw your arm off without novacaine, than have to deal with Medicaid...

Where are you getting that impression of Medicaid? I'm sure some people have bad experiences with it, but that's not even close to the overall sentiment I've heard. I used to work in a hospital, too, dealing with Medicaid.

This is the bill which the Dems went to so much trouble, and risked their political necks on. Wowie. Guess we will find out come November what the people think of it. I am laying money it will not be a big win for the Dems.:no:

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but here's the deal:

What we need is single-payer healthcare. That just isn't going to happen all at once. So, this is the best we could do for now. It sucks, but if the republicans and some of the democrats would wise up, we wouldn't have to take these stupid little steps.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some kind of 'forced' universal coverage by forcing people to get their own insurance, and then offerring to roll those into Medicaid who can't afford it...like anyone wants to be in Medicaid? Like, it would be better to just not have health insurance and pay out of pocket, than have to deal with Medicaid.

I wouldn't mind being on Medicaid. It's alot better than what I got, better than what most people have, and it cover more of what I need. I feel a Medicaid expansion is the right thing to do, especially when considering many college students loose their insurance from there parents, if they had any to begin with, and then those who are working to better themselves will be able to have insurance since most jobs that college students hold, especially those in graduate school, do not offer any insurance, and if they do is it very sub-standard. And then after college, alot of places still do not offer insurance, or good insurance.

 

[Troublemane]

Medicaid only covers 60% of the cost of a procedure, which is why most family doctors won't use it. And with Medicaid becoming the de-facto "single payer" alternative, and Medicare being slashed in half,..and the public funding being cut to the larger hospitals....Do ya smell what Barack is cookin? LoL (sorry, couldn't pass it up!)

Seriously, what I am seeing on the horizon is a massive influx of new people into Medicaid, and a shortage of doctors who will touch it.

I'd still like to know the percentage of the 2.3 trillion spent, I believe the majority (51%) was spent on prescription drugs....I think. But was it more by the private sector or public?

If I am right, I think it is the private sector/insurance companies that paid for the larger part of that 2.3 trillion. And the public sector (aka, tax-payer) expenses grew less last year than the private sector. Thats supposedly because of the downturn in the economy, as employers are spending more on less employees while medical costs are also rising. (I think insurance group rates go up per employee, with less employees on staff, but I am not 100% sure...)

So here's my thing....the 2.3 trillion accounted for 16% of the nations GDP. If the debt to GDP ratio is narrowing because of the recession, as the congress goes further into debt to give a 'stimulus' to the country (aka, Wall Street), the deficit will continue to rise.....And as the economy continues to flounder (no new homes being built, NASA is about to have 9,000 people laid off,etc....) the GDP will continue to drop.

NOW....debt rising + GDP dropping = deficit going up, and UP, AND UP...not going down. No matter how many pennies are being saved initially by moving people from medicare to medicaid. Its all smoke and mirrors my friends. Smoke and mirrors. (no offense SMOKE) :angel2:

 

[Falvlun]

All figures from World Health Organization, latest data available as of this morning:

So, I was listening to Bill Bennett's Morning in America, and his guest stated that the reason why America's life expectancy was so low was because we don't allow our mentally and physically handicapped infants to die like they do in those other countries. (Oh, and they don't count count those infants that they just let die in their infant mortality rate.) :areyoucra

Anyone here actually believe this crap?

 

[Darkness]

I'd like to know how socialized medicine would be paid for. I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around how this would work.

Everybody would be automatically covered just by being an American citizen. If your insurer provides private health insurance, you would get insurance through that provider. You could raise the money from any number of methods (e.g. VAT tax, income tax, etc.). Think of it as expanding medicare to all Americans.

 

[Troublemane]

Hey in case you missed it. Looks like the CBO was wrong, or they were lying. What a surprise.

Report: Health overhaul will increase tab - Health care reform- msnbc.com