RE: HEALTH CARE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 7:14:57 PM)

lol... i know



Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 8:42:30 PM)

I know what you mean when you say ridiculous Lucylastic. I got my university degree in economics and I don't remember discussing the essence of the transaction. LOL I wonder if that's in macroeconomics or microeconomics?



Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 8:45:30 PM)

You know what? It will be worth it later this year when they pass a health care bill and millions of people can finally go to a doctor.



rulemylife -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 9:34:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

What did that earlier post say 77% want some form of nationalized health care or health care reform? I guess not many of them are THAT concerned about it:

"Would you pay higher taxes in order to fund health care reform?
No 88%
Yes 12% "



Source?

that bastion of conservatism, Yahoo news.


Then provide a link.



rulemylife -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 9:39:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

so sorry... not acceptable

\

I could care less what you find acceptable. You arent the fucking arbiter of truth.


Ohhhhhhhhh, Willbeurrrrrrrrrr!

See, she doesn't have to be.

You do.

If you want people to believe what you post.

You can't just throw numbers out of nowhere with no citation or proof.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/3/2009 11:33:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

so sorry... not acceptable

\

I could care less what you find acceptable. You arent the fucking arbiter of truth.


Ohhhhhhhhh, Willbeurrrrrrrrrr!

See, she doesn't have to be.

You do.

If you want people to believe what you post.

You can't just throw numbers out of nowhere with no citation or proof.




I cited numbers even more skewed than the ones I originally posted. And note that no one has bothered to post any that dispute it.

QED



Brain -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 12:17:07 AM)

Look at how much money these two wars will cost, combined they are approaching $1 trillion. That is enough money to pay for healthcare for 10 years.

All the dead men and women not only Americans but Iraqis and Afghan civilians, what a waste! Maybe you could justify Afghanistan because that’s where bin Laden was but Iraq is nothing but Mission Nothing Accomplished!

Because when we leave that hell hole all hell is going to break loose regardless of all the money and human life spent. Darrell Dawkins the retired basketball player was right when he said Republicans have lost their minds.

http://costofwar.com/


Happy birthday Mr. President. I believe you are 48 today.



Sanity -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 3:37:59 AM)


Reality is, "millions of people" can go to the doctor NOW. There are "free clinics" and there is Medicare, etc,  and emergency rooms can legally turn away no one.

And government isn't going to make health care "free" because there is no such thing as "free" anything. No free lunches and there is  and there will never be "free" health care. There won't be more doctors, there won't be more money, there will only be more government control.

Bureaucrats making predictably insane decisions as to who qualifies for what, and the wealthy (and Congress people) will continue to get the premium care while everyone else will be left sucking bureaucrat cock.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I know what you mean when you say ridiculous Lucylastic. I got my university degree in economics and I don't remember discussing the essence of the transaction. LOL I wonder if that's in macroeconomics or microeconomics?





Sanity -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 3:45:39 AM)


That's a red herring. Defense costs will always be there. Democrats vote for military expenditures because enough of them are adult enough to realize that they are absolutely necessary.

If health care is a right why isn't food, shelter and clothing a right. Why isn't everything a right. Why should anyone ever have to get out of bed?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Look at how much money these two wars will cost, combined they are approaching $1 trillion. That is enough money to pay for healthcare for 10 years.

All the dead men and women not only Americans but Iraqis and Afghan civilians, what a waste! Maybe you could justify Afghanistan because that’s where bin Laden was but Iraq is nothing but Mission Nothing Accomplished!

Because when we leave that hell hole all hell is going to break loose regardless of all the money and human life spent. Darrell Dawkins the retired basketball player was right when he said Republicans have lost their minds.

http://costofwar.com/


Happy birthday Mr. President. I believe you are 48 today.




Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 4:25:00 AM)

quote:

Yeah... I can't wait until the government decides what is protocol or best in a situation and more fall between the cracks.
They already do. Treatments and drugs must all be approved by the federal government for use on humans before they are allowed.



Lucylastic -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 4:38:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


That's a red herring. Defense costs will always be there. Democrats vote for military expenditures because enough of them are adult enough to realize that they are absolutely necessary.

If health care is a right why isn't food, shelter and clothing a right. Why isn't everything a right. Why should anyone ever have to get out of bed?


Food and shelter will be covered in his next term Sanity:) need to take things one at a time dontcha know *wink*
Lucy



Sanity -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 6:30:25 AM)


Be careful winking at me like that Lucy, you have no idea what you're doing to me... [8D]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Food and shelter will be covered in his next term Sanity:) need to take things one at a time dontcha know *wink*
Lucy




Lucylastic -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 6:44:35 AM)

Heheheheh Good morning to you:)
[:D]



cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 9:09:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

uh uh willbe. try posting a link. you do this far too often. you want your sources believed.. post them.

It was one of those pop up polls you can only vote in once. It was actually more favorable than the Fox News poll where 95% say no.


Oh, you mean one of those that come with the disclaimer "for entertainment purposes only, not scientifically valid?"




cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 9:20:57 AM)

OK, so let's add doctor's malpractice insurance. Premiums were 0.58% of health care expenditure. That's still less than 1% of total health care expenditures, and a lot less than the 30% that goes towards private health insurance company's overheads. Heck, the cost of torts is even less than Medicare's 4% overhead!

Unnecessary tests? By definition, that's a test whose outcome does not affect the patient's health. Pray tell how a doctor could get sued over not doing a test if the patient doesn't get hurt by it. In any case, most tests aren't expensive; treatment can be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Your source is laughable, basically some anonymous Joe posting highly questionable facts and assertions. Even if anonymous Joe is telling the truth on his or her web page, the direct tort costs are but a tiny percentage of the total costs to consumers. Doctors have to run many more tests then they otherwise might for fear of malpractice suits, doctor's malpractice insurance costs are affected, and so on.

When I get some time later I'll try and find some real numbers for you, or you can try to find something more believable and post them.

I'm a little busy now though.


quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Tort reform? That's a good one. 0.38% of health care cost in the USA. That's how little all verdicts settlements etc. have cost, including lawyer's fees (the number is from 2002, but it has been fairly consistent for two decades). http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

So maybe in 2010 health care cost would only rise by 4.62 % to 9.62% instead of the 5% to 10% is been rising in the last couple of years.

Laughable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
You haven't been listening then. One thing I've mentioned is we begin with tort reform.

The next is kick Obama's lying ass out of the White House, and find someone who has the same message for every crowd he faces. Obama, when he's talking to his socialist friends says that his plan will bring socialized medicine in through the back door, but he tells the nation at large that no one is talking about doing that at all:

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

Get a leader who is honest, then start with tort reform, and go from there.


quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

So, what is your proposal? I have not heard one peep from any Republican about how to solve the mess we currently have.






cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 9:30:23 AM)

Ummm... "can't turn away anybody" doesn't mean "affordable". As I'm sure you'll find out if you ever have the pleasure of receiving a bill from an ER visit.

And the other examples are kind of surprising coming from you. I thought you felt that government programs don't work, yet now you argue that government-run Medicare and "free clinics" are working well for millions of people. What gives?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Reality is, "millions of people" can go to the doctor NOW. There are "free clinics" and there is Medicare, etc,  and emergency rooms can legally turn away no one.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Bureaucrats making predictably insane decisions as to who qualifies for what, and the wealthy (and Congress people) will continue to get the premium care while everyone else will be left sucking bureaucrat cock.

And that is different from the current situation how?




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 9:42:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Ummm... "can't turn away anybody" doesn't mean "affordable". As I'm sure you'll find out if you ever have the pleasure of receiving a bill from an ER visit.

And the other examples are kind of surprising coming from you. I thought you felt that government programs don't work, yet now you argue that government-run Medicare and "free clinics" are working well for millions of people. What gives?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Reality is, "millions of people" can go to the doctor NOW. There are "free clinics" and there is Medicare, etc,  and emergency rooms can legally turn away no one.



Not to mention this does absolutely nothing in terms of providing preventive care, which is a significant factor in the high overall costs of our health care system. For most uninsured people, serious medical conditions are not diagnosed until they've reached a point where they've become very expensive to treat, rather than being addressed in an earlier stage while they may still be easily treatable.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 10:02:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

OK, so let's add doctor's malpractice insurance. Premiums were 0.58% of health care expenditure. That's still less than 1% of total health care expenditures, and a lot less than the 30% that goes towards private health insurance company's overheads. Heck, the cost of torts is even less than Medicare's 4% overhead!


"In 2007, according to a survey by the consulting firm Towers Perrin, the American civil liability, or tort, system imposed $252 billion in costs on the U.S. economy. The cost of defending and paying medical malpractice claims accounted for about $30 billion of that total.

Consider that the estimated annual cost of ObamaCare is pegged at about $100 billion, and it's easy to see how to find some of the money to pay for it.

Between 1997 and 2007, the cost of dealing with medical torts nearly doubled -- from $15.5 billion to $30.4 billion.

What is unquantifiable is the degree to which the threat of liability affected the practice of medicine, making it more defensive and thus more expensive. Economic studies and various claims by physicians and attorneys differ. "


And putting the 30% (an inflated number to start with) and 4% together imply they are comparable numbers. They arent, and the overhead for covering the general population in a public option will be at least as great as under private insurance.

Note that the European model of UHC has a vastly different tort system greatly reducing that expense.



cadenas -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 11:12:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

OK, so let's add doctor's malpractice insurance. Premiums were 0.58% of health care expenditure. That's still less than 1% of total health care expenditures, and a lot less than the 30% that goes towards private health insurance company's overheads. Heck, the cost of torts is even less than Medicare's 4% overhead!


"In 2007, according to a survey by the consulting firm Towers Perrin, the American civil liability, or tort, system imposed $252 billion in costs on the U.S. economy. The cost of defending and paying medical malpractice claims accounted for about $30 billion of that total.


Thank you for corroborating my numbers. $30 billion is approximately 1% of the $2700 billion (2.7 trillion) of overall health care expenditure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Consider that the estimated annual cost of ObamaCare is pegged at about $100 billion, and it's easy to see how to find some of the money to pay for it.


You mean, by looking at the $1000 billion or so in administrative overhead in private health insurance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Between 1997 and 2007, the cost of dealing with medical torts nearly doubled -- from $15.5 billion to $30.4 billion.


.. while the overall health care cost increased from nearly tripled, from $928 billion or so to $2700 billion. Where did the other 99% of health care cost increase came from? $1755 billion aren't exactly peanuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
And putting the 30% (an inflated number to start with) and 4% together imply they are comparable numbers. They arent, and the overhead for covering the general population in a public option will be at least as great as under private insurance.


Care to cite any supporting information for that claim?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Note that the European model of UHC has a vastly different tort system greatly reducing that expense.





Arpig -> RE: HEALTH CARE (8/4/2009 12:07:11 PM)

quote:

Care to cite any supporting information for that claim?
Not likely. [:)]



Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875