Obama Care

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So if the goverment wants to raise your taxes 10 to 15% your fine with that. Massachusetts has mandated health insurance which started in 2006 at a cost of around 633 million and it now projected to cost around 950 million in 2009. Thats goverment at work for you.

First off, the question is do I think that universal healthcare is vitally important. The answer is yes. That being the case, am I willing to pay an increase in taxes for that benefit? Yes again. I am already paying a significant sum of money for things I would rather not, whether it's ridiculous research into quack science or funding poor lending practices, this is something that I feel is actually a basic, human rights/quality of life issue. You cannot be an advanced society when ANY percentage of your population are denied healthcare. Take a look at defense spending in the same period. I'd be interested to see how much of a difference there is in one as opposed to the other. Too many people get wrapped up in these emotional issues with ideas being labelled "democratic, republican or, oh my heavens, socialist." Sit back, take off your partisan hat and think about the most basic question: Should everyone, let alone every US Citizen, have access to quality healthcare?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

First off, the question is do I think that universal healthcare is vitally important. The answer is yes. That being the case, am I willing to pay an increase in taxes for that, yes again. I am already paying a significant sum of money for things I would rather not, this is something that I feel is actually a basic, human rights/quality of life issue. You cannot be an advanced society when ANY percentage of your population are denied healthcare. Take a look at defense spending in the same period. I'd be interested to see how much of a difference there is in one as opposed to the other. Too many people get wrapped up in these emotional issues with ideas being labelled "democratic, republican or, oh my heavens, socialist." Sit back, take off your partisan hat and think about the most basic question: Should everyone, let alone every US Citizen, have access to quality healthcare?

First off this coverage will go to anyone who is living in the US legal or not. Second there is not that many people denied health coverage or cannot afford health care to tear apart our health care system. Does it need some work. Yes but goverment is one of the biggest problems with health care coverage today. Goverment F*&$ up everything it touches, SS, Medicad, Medicare, heck even the post office is loosing money. I don't care who comes up with this bad plan I'm not for the goverments power grab of about 10% of the US economy.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

First off this coverage will go to anyone who is living in the US legal or not. Second there is not that many people denied health coverage or cannot afford health care to tear apart our health care system. Does it need some work. Yes but goverment is one of the biggest problems with health care coverage today. Goverment F*&$ up everything it touches, SS, Medicad, Medicare, heck even the post office is loosing money. I don't care who comes up with this bad plan I'm not for the goverments power grab of about 10% of the US economy.

Have you been paying attention the last year or so? You want an example of how well the private sector governs itself, look no further than the housing bubble and associated ridiculous lending practices. The ones who trot out the whole "government screws up everything" routine need to keep that in mind for the future.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Have you been paying attention the last year or so? You want an example of how well the private sector governs itself, look no further than the housing bubble and associated ridiculous lending practices. The ones who trot out the whole "government screws up everything" routine need to keep that in mind for the future.

Oh you mean those loans the goverment forced the banks to make. Do I need to serch out those YouTube clips of Barrney Frank and others lecturing the banks about how they have to make these loans to people who cannot afford them.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Oh you mean those loans the goverment forced the banks to make. Do I need to serch out those YouTube clips of Barrney Frank and others lecturing the banks about how they have to make these loans to people who cannot afford them.

Forced, as in, "here's a giant ****ing loophole, please take advantage of it."

Inmates running the asylum is never a good idea.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Forced, as in, "here's a giant ****ing loophole, please take advantage of it."

Inmates running the asylum is never a good idea.

You mean like goverment talking about free health coverage?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You mean like goverment talking about free health coverage?

Who said free? I know I'm not on crystal meth, so i'm pretty sure I didn't hallucinate and say anything of the sort.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Oh you mean those loans the goverment forced the banks to make. Do I need to serch out those YouTube clips of Barrney Frank and others lecturing the banks about how they have to make these loans to people who cannot afford them.

Even Proof means nothing to some people FirstDown

YouTube - Covering Your Fannie, Who Really Caused...

. These Dems and Clinton Administration officials ran the GSE's , Citi , AIG , And Countrywide .Barney Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Some of these bums should be in Jail Franklin Raines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Robert Rubin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. She is the worst Jamie Gorelick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And Hillary , who never wanted workers to have health care while a board member at WalMart Hillary Rodham Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Second there is not that many people denied health coverage or cannot afford health care to tear apart our health care system. Does it need some work. Yes but goverment is one of the biggest problems with health care coverage today.

Not that many people? That's an absurd statement. How many tens of millions of legal citizens does it take?

Government might be one of the biggest problems, but the biggest problem is that Health Insurance companies have been raping the American people forever and they don't want to give up all that money that they steal from us. Why would anyone want to protect these interests? Money for campaigns. It's all about money.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

First off, the question is do I think that universal healthcare is vitally important. The answer is yes. That being the case, am I willing to pay an increase in taxes for that benefit? Yes again. I am already paying a significant sum of money for things I would rather not, whether it's ridiculous research into quack science or funding poor lending practices, this is something that I feel is actually a basic, human rights/quality of life issue. You cannot be an advanced society when ANY percentage of your population are denied healthcare. Take a look at defense spending in the same period. I'd be interested to see how much of a difference there is in one as opposed to the other. Too many people get wrapped up in these emotional issues with ideas being labelled "democratic, republican or, oh my heavens, socialist." Sit back, take off your partisan hat and think about the most basic question: Should everyone, let alone every US Citizen, have access to quality healthcare?

Depends on what you mean by "quality." Every citizen should have access to Emergency care. But is it everyone's right to access elective-preventative care? I say no, you pay as you go.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Depends on what you mean by "quality." Every citizen should have access to Emergency care. But is it everyone's right to access elective-preventative care? I say no, you pay as you go.

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Depends on what you mean by "quality." Every citizen should have access to Emergency care. But is it everyone's right to access elective-preventative care? I say no, you pay as you go.

That's a new phrase I haven't heard before. And from the cost perspective? You're in the business of cost analysis...which would you prefer to pay for? Elective-preventative care or emergency care?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

That's a new phrase I haven't heard before. And from the cost perspective? You're in the business of cost analysis...which would you prefer to pay for? Elective-preventative care or emergency care?

Almost the same exact question as BB. Please see response here:

http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post564269

[Slingin Sammy 33]

FWIW

Health-Care Myths at Emac’s Stock Watch | Fox Business

Also, ever heard of Comparative Effectiveness Research. It's already funded in the Spendulus Bill, to the tune of $ 1.1B. Sounds like a good idea, research the most cost-effective treatments....not so fast. CER boards are used in countries with socialized medicine (oops sorry sounds too sinister, Universal Health Care) to ration health care and determine what treatments may be used and given to whom. Those of you with grandparents or parents in their 60s+ better pay attention because treatments such as heart valve replacements, hip replacements, etc. are denied to the elderly in many cases. If I'm full of partisan BS, why have the GOP senators drafted the following bill to stop exactly what is already happening in countries with socializ.....Universal Health Care.

CNSNews.com - GOP Senator Offers Bill to Prohibit Health-Care Rationing Based on Obama's 'Comparative Effectiveness Research'

Is this the type of control we want to give to government bureacrats? Not me. Bottom line is there aren't a tremendous amount of uninsured in this country, less than 10% and at least 1/3 of them make over $ 50K per year.