Health-Care bill drafted by Democrats & Obama to include $600 BILLION in TAX INCREASES...

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

yeah lets make everyones health care information digitized for all the world to see! ... ... ... not worry about doctor patient privacy?! that would work in an unbiased, perfect world where the only flower that grew was roses ...

We wouldn't put this information on Google. It would be in a secured database. How often is a database leak linked to a bank? Would yourather do a database search for the information you're looking for? or go into a library and have to search through multiple rows of books before youfound the one you were looking for?

 

[ponson02]

I'm just worried about the Medicare and Medicaid cuts. I work in the mental health field and my job is driven by medicare and medicaid. Does anybody herehave any insight or info regarding what this new bill will mean for the future of the mental health field?

 

[joe dirt]

Those "Illegal Citizens' pay taxes just like you or me.

They pay the same property tax, sales tax, and income tax and they do so LEGALLY.

They actually put more into the system than they take out.

You think there money is only good when your taking it but when they ask for a little back it doesn't count.

just google for the story of the non-violent asian man who was denied a doctor while in an immigration holding cell, he died of cancer while screaming in pain.

or the mexican boy - BOY! - who instead of being treated for his deadly tumor was deported and died a couple days later.

If you were in another country in an emergency fighting for your life would you want the your life to depend on citizenship status?

 

[icykicks79]

 

[kash55]

Originally Posted by TBONE95860

Originally Posted by kash55

If you want government health care you need to pay taxes. That's how the rest of the world does it.

America isn't the rest of the world buddy

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Yeah, you're right.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by kash55

Originally Posted by TBONE95860

Originally Posted by kash55

If you want government health care you need to pay taxes. That's how the rest of the world does it.

America isn't the rest of the world buddy

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Yeah, you're right.

How dare you post facts as it being true.

I already stated this and no on was hearing it.. They are more concerned with opinion being fact than fact being opinion.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

wawaweewa wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Dirtylicious wrote:

---

but because they would be paying a higher deductible from their own account, there would be a greater incentive to use medicine more sparingly and to emphasize prevention.

dubious

Only a universe where streams and demand curves flow upward.


Actually a slightly longer explanation will illuminate how premium, low or no deductible insurance holders heavily consume health care. If you paid a flat rate, or if your employer on your behalf, of 300 per month to a grocery store and in exchange you could take what ever you want, the value of what you consume will probably be higher than the pay you go system at grocery stores today.

When someone pays a flat rate and then, later on pays a zero or near zero price for a good or service they will almost always try to get their money's worth. This is why most planned expenses do not operate on this system. Insurance is for events you do not want to happen like a car crash, a house fire, a robbery or emergency and/or very expensive hospital stays and surgeries, unplanned health events. Insurance is supposed to be a way to avert catastrophic financial loss. Unfortunately the premium, low or no deductible insurance does not just cover the emergency or otherwise unplanned events, it covers elective and planned events.

A good plan is to change the tax incentive to have employers offer higher deductible insurance and couple that with tax sheltered health savings accounts, similar to a 401k, with a tax incentive for employers to match or make contributions of their own. This combination of higher deductible insurance along with these accounts and the prospect of individuals being allowed to withdraw, tax free, funds that are 10-20 years old, would reduce health care consumption, a the margins.

Because the supply of health care is very inelastic, even a slight reduction in demand by full coverage holders, would greatly reduce the price of medical and health care. That makes it more affordable and accessible, without government having to spend or tax a dime.





We live in the real world.
Not in text book land.

Once one takes fraud, criminal acts, corruption, imperfect information , and about 1 billion+ more negative externalities into account do those graphs and theories change?
Even a tiny bit? .maybe?



People buy more at zero price then at a price that is well above zero, that is the real world. If you had to pay a 100k for every one of your cute little, lectures on how street smart you are, I would have to read less lectures by someone who has shown a failure to even understand the various theories that he claims to be so good at taking apart.

Economic theory is an abstraction, it is like a road map, it is not meant to account for every detail. It is, however, a basic set of assumptions which have shown themselves to be true in all or nearly all situations. The way you confused speculation with demand (they are the same things) and just claimed that "fraud, criminal acts, corruption, imperfect information , and about 1 billion+ more negative externalities" cause demand curves to slope upward, is proof that you should at least learn the theories which you claim that you have personally advanced so far beyond.



Either you're a liar or delusional.
Academic economists tend to be either of the two.

Confused speculation with demand? I claimed that negative externalities cause demand curves to slope upwards?
Can you show me where I wrote3 down the words "speculation, demand, curve, slope....". Please, show me.


All my argument stated is that you cannot use abstract economic theories to prove that one plan is superior to another in the realm of the US health caresystem.
You simply can't. Abstract economic theories cannot even account for many important variables in less complicated scenarios let alone the ridiculousamount of fraud, corruption, political interference, etc. in the multi (100's ) billion $ field of US health care costs.

There are specific reasons that US health care costs are completely unmanageable and they are specifically due to outright fraud and other criminal actsassociated mainly with medicare/medicaid.

I can give you firsthand examples if you'd like. I mean, they're not in a textbook but I can assure you they're very real.

General Overview.

Medicare Fraud Tops $60 Billion Per Year

Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise at 2:00 AM on June 16, 2008.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/88247/medicare_fraud_tops_$60_billion_per_year/



Again, I can give you specific examples of what certain (i.e. many

) hospitals and Dr's do as itpertains to billing that is fraudulent.

One can create any new system they want. The problem isn't the existing system. It's criminal abuse of the current system and of any future systems.

 

[wawaweewa]

Some more general examples.

• May 18, 2009, 4:42 PM ET

[h1]WellCare Pays Another $10 Million Over Medicaid Fraud Probes[/h1]
WellCare is settling another government probe related to its Medicaid troubles.
Remember when the feds raided WellCare's headquarters back in 2007? The company, which manages health coverage for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, early this month agreed to pay $80 million to resolve federal and state criminal probes into allegations that it defrauded Florida's Medicaid program by improperly inflating what it spent on care. The fraud investigation prompted the company to restate more than three years of its earnings in July.


LOL. 80 Million after they stole how much?

[h1]HealthSouth to pay $325M to resolve Medicare fraud allegations[/h1] [h2]Daily Record (Rochester, NY) , Jan 12, 2005 by Daily Record Staff[/h2]
HealthSouth Corp., a provider of rehabilitative medicine services, has agreed to pay the United States $325 million to settle allegations it defrauded Medicare and other federal healthcare programs.


This is a bad joke anyway because the vast majority of medicare providers such as Healthsouth and Wellcare milk the medicare/medicaid system in one way oranother. The Feds decided to earn some cool points with the public by going after these 2 in recent years.

There's much more though. We can continue.

 

[wawaweewa]

Payment errors continue to plague Medicare program

By MATTHEW PERRONE - May 18, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal program with a history of making billions of dollars in erroneous payments for wheelchairs, oxygen machines and other medical equipment continues to grossly underestimate its own mistakes, according to federal investigators.

The Medicare program spends about $10 billion annually in payments to suppliers of medical equipment for the elderly and disabled. For years, federal inspectors have documented payment errors that expose the program to fraud and abuse. Last year the inspector general who oversees Medicare estimated the waste could be as high as $2.8 billion annually.


"Errors" as in fraud?

How many times can one make an error whereby it is no longer a simple "error".

 

[devildog1776]

Gotta tank the US to bring global order

 

[rexanglorum]

You implied that the idea of demand sloping downward was untrue. You stated clearly that it is mere theory that falls apart in the "real world."Really? You serious?

Maybe "demand slopes downward" sounds too "academic" to you. all it it means is that when the price of something is zero, people are goingto consume more of that something then when the price is somewhere above zero.

I see you want to expose fraud, congratulations. That has nothing to do with the relationship between price and how much people consume.




Dirty, I would say that having lower deductibles for workers whose HSA is not yet built up or some form of temporary gap insurance is a way to bridge the gapbetween starting with an HSA and building it.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

You implied that the idea of demand sloping downward was untrue. You stated clearly that it is mere theory that falls apart in the "real world." Really? You serious?

Maybe "demand slopes downward" sounds too "academic" to you. all it it means is that when the price of something is zero, people are going to consume more of that something then when the price is somewhere above zero.

I see you want to expose fraud, congratulations. That has nothing to do with the relationship between price and how much people consume.




Dirty, I would say that having lower deductibles for workers whose HSA is not yet built up or some form of temporary gap insurance is a way to bridge the gap between starting with an HSA and building it.

I didn't imply anything.

Seriously are you seeing things?
My argument is that your fanciful straight out of the textbook arguments are pie in the sky.

I'm not trying to expose fraud per se.
I'm just showing what is i.e. reality and what "should be" i.e. textbook talk.

I also have a degree in a fanciful economics.

It's a great bunch of "best case" scenarios.

it's copmpletely asinine to "fix" the health care system when the biggest problem is not the system itself but the4 fraud and corruption that isallowed to permeate throughout the system.
It doesn't matter what system you put in place. They will all "fail" if the greatest obstacle to a stable system isn't addressed.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by kash55

Originally Posted by TBONE95860

Originally Posted by kash55

If you want government health care you need to pay taxes. That's how the rest of the world does it.

America isn't the rest of the world buddy

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Yeah, you're right.

How dare you post facts as it being true.

I already stated this and no on was hearing it.. They are more concerned with opinion being fact than fact being opinion.

getting sick and not having health care must be really scary....let's put it like this..yeah this has to happen.

 

[rexanglorum]

wawaweewa wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

You implied that the idea of demand sloping downward was untrue. You stated clearly that it is mere theory that falls apart in the "real world." Really? You serious?

Maybe "demand slopes downward" sounds too "academic" to you. all it it means is that when the price of something is zero, people are going to consume more of that something then when the price is somewhere above zero.

I see you want to expose fraud, congratulations. That has nothing to do with the relationship between price and how much people consume.




Dirty, I would say that having lower deductibles for workers whose HSA is not yet built up or some form of temporary gap insurance is a way to bridge the gap between starting with an HSA and building it.

I didn't imply anything.

Seriously are you seeing things?
My argument is that your fanciful straight out of the textbook arguments are pie in the sky.

I'm not trying to expose fraud per se.
I'm just showing what is i.e. reality and what "should be" i.e. textbook talk.

I also have a degree in a fanciful economics.

It's a great bunch of "best case" scenarios.

it's copmpletely asinine to "fix" the health care system when the biggest problem is not the system itself but the4 fraud and corruption that is allowed to permeate throughout the system.
It doesn't matter what system you put in place. They will all "fail" if the greatest obstacle to a stable system isn't addressed.



I never said that changing how people pay for health care is the only way improve the overall health care system. All I said is that people pay more for thingsthey do not have to pay for. That is a pretty straight forward, simple and true notion.

If you take any industry and let a certain group of people consume at zero price, the people not in that group will face higher costs and perhaps the costswill be so great to seriously deny access. That will be true no matter what other qualities that industry happened to posses.




As far as the #37 ranking is concerned, I would not read too much into it. The way the WHO compiled the rankings puts very little emphasis on results and moston process. The Lakers might be lottery team if the standings had only weighted wins and losses as 25% of its formula and had things like ticket prices, arenalocation and team uniform color and design making up the other 75%.

 

[ooiron manoo]

getting sick and not having health care must be really scary....let's put it like this..yeah this has to happen.
It is bro, it is always on the back of your mind. When I'm hooping, snowboarding, driving, etc.

I didn't want to go to the hospital for my "stomach" pains, despite my mom and girlfriend urging me to do so. I knew the bill would be high, Iwas right

. I even asked one of my cousins, who has a similar buildand is the same age as me, if he had health insurance. I was going to go in as him,

, but it turned out he didn't have insurance either.

My mentality is not to go to the doctor unless I really really (emphasis on really) have to, I never went to the hospital before the appendix incident, and Ihaven't gone back since. When I finally get health benefits it will be interesting to see if I'm in perfect health. As of right now, I think likemost Americans. Not focused on preventive health, but going to the doctor only when it is absolutely necessary.

Bottom line it is easier and cheaper to prevent diseases, rather than treat them. Plus, most Americans seek care when it is too late.

The MediCare/MediCal system we currently have, needs to be overhauled. It does not work, bottom line.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

wawaweewa wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

You implied that the idea of demand sloping downward was untrue. You stated clearly that it is mere theory that falls apart in the "real world." Really? You serious?

Maybe "demand slopes downward" sounds too "academic" to you. all it it means is that when the price of something is zero, people are going to consume more of that something then when the price is somewhere above zero.

I see you want to expose fraud, congratulations. That has nothing to do with the relationship between price and how much people consume.




Dirty, I would say that having lower deductibles for workers whose HSA is not yet built up or some form of temporary gap insurance is a way to bridge the gap between starting with an HSA and building it.

I didn't imply anything.

Seriously are you seeing things?
My argument is that your fanciful straight out of the textbook arguments are pie in the sky.

I'm not trying to expose fraud per se.
I'm just showing what is i.e. reality and what "should be" i.e. textbook talk.

I also have a degree in a fanciful economics.

It's a great bunch of "best case" scenarios.

it's copmpletely asinine to "fix" the health care system when the biggest problem is not the system itself but the4 fraud and corruption that is allowed to permeate throughout the system.
It doesn't matter what system you put in place. They will all "fail" if the greatest obstacle to a stable system isn't addressed.

I never said that changing how people pay for health care is the only way improve the overall health care system. All I said is that people pay more for things they do not have to pay for. That is a pretty straight forward, simple and true notion.

If you take any industry and let a certain group of people consume at zero price, the people not in that group will face higher costs and perhaps the costs will be so great to seriously deny access. That will be true no matter what other qualities that industry happened to posses.




As far as the #37 ranking is concerned, I would not read too much into it. The way the WHO compiled the rankings puts very little emphasis on results and most on process. The Lakers might be lottery team if the standings had only weighted wins and losses as 25% of its formula and had things like ticket prices, arena location and team uniform color and design making up the other 75%.




In this regard I agree.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

getting sick and not having health care must be really scary....let's put it like this..yeah this has to happen.

It is bro, it is always on the back of your mind. When I'm hooping, snowboarding, driving, etc.

I didn't want to go to the hospital for my "stomach" pains, despite my mom and girlfriend urging me to do so. I knew the bill would be high, I was right

. I even asked one of my cousins, who has a similar build and is the same age as me, if he had health insurance. I was going to go in as him,

, but it turned out he didn't have insurance either.

My mentality is not to go to the doctor unless I really really (emphasis on really) have to, I never went to the hospital before the appendix incident, and I haven't gone back since. When I finally get health benefits it will be interesting to see if I'm in perfect health. As of right now, I think like most Americans. Not focused on preventive health, but going to the doctor only when it is absolutely necessary.

Bottom line it is easier and cheaper to prevent diseases, rather than treat them. Plus, most Americans seek care when it is too late.

The MediCare/MediCal system we currently have, needs to be overhauled. It does not work, bottom line.



I can second this..was actually pretty sick not too long ago.

Not too worry. The hospital told me that patients who get emergency blood transfusions are rarely turned down for emergency medicaid. Hopefully I get itbecause 20k in hospital bills sucks.
If I did have insurance I wouldn't have eneded up nearly as sick. Oh well at least I have a cool story to tell to the future grandkids.

 

[tbone95860]

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's health secretary on Sunday pushed for a new government-run healthcare program, anidea facing skepticism even in his own party, and a senior Senate Democrat flatly said votes are lacking in Congress for the proposal.

In addition, Vice President Joe Biden opposed proposals being discussed by some lawmakers to tax health insurance benefits provided to people by employers as away to pay for an overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry.

Obama, aiming to get healthcare costs under control and ensure that the 46 million Americans who are uninsured can get health coverage, wants a new publicprogram to compete with private insurers.

"The president feels that having a 'public option' side by side -- same playing field, same rules -- will give Americans choice and will helplower costs for everybody. And that's a good thing," Sebelius told CNN.

"The president does not want to dismantle privately owned plans. He doesn't want the 180 million people who have employer coverage to lose thatcoverage. He wants to strengthen the marketplace," Sebelius added.

Healthcare costs undermine the competitiveness of U.S. companies, drive many families into bankruptcy and eat up a growing portion of state and federalspending.

Versions of healthcare legislation unveiled by senior Democrats in the House and Senate include a new government insurance program. ButRepublicans are adamantly opposed to the idea, saying it could harm private insurers, and some of Obama's fellow Democrats are against it, too.

'VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS'

Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said there is not enough support in Congress for the "public option" eventhough proponents offer "very good arguments" for it.

"You've got to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtually all of the Democrats together. And that, I don't believe, is possible withthe pure 'public option.' I don't think the votes are there," Conrad said on CNN.

There already are large public health insurance programs like the Medicare program for those over 65 and the disabled and the Medicaid for the poor. Obamaenvisions a program for those not already covered by existing public plans.

Conrad has proposed an alternative to a new public program -- a system of federally chartered insurance cooperatives that could be a nonprofit alternative tothe insurance industry.

Susan Collins, one of the few moderate Senate Republicans, said on CNN this was an intriguing idea that could serve as a compromise between those for andagainst a new public plan.

Obama on Monday is set to address the American Medical Association, which represents the nation's doctors and has voiced skepticism about a broad newpublic plan but willingness to consider other proposals including the cooperatives.

Sebelius did not embrace the proposal but also did not dismiss it, saying, "There is no one-size-fits-all idea."

Biden, on the NBC program "Meet the Press," also signaled Obama's flexibility on the nature of a new public plan.

Most Americans with health insurance get it through an employer. During last year's presidential election, Obama derided the idea of taxingemployer-provided health benefits.

But some lawmakers have revived the idea as a way to paying for the healthcare overhaul. "We've made it clear we do not think that is the way to go.We think that is the wrong way to finance this legislation," Biden said. (Additional reporting by David Alexander and David Morgan; Editing by Eric Walsh)

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by TBONE95860

well if we don't get health care Republicans and Democrats will be on the chopping block. Not Obama.

Also Obama will be able to conjure up 55 votes himself the other 5 will be citizens, if they don't listen they will be endangered.

 

[fede dpt]

Obama sounded great, but boy did he lie to the AMA today.

The way the WHO compiled the rankings puts very little emphasis on results and most on process.


Pretty much. The WHO is just a faction of the Labour Party anyway.


The problem is that people in this country think health care is a "right", people can access health care whenever they want. If you go to the ER youhave to be treated, it's a federal law. Problem is that in this country everyone is hypochondriac.