Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 1:49:50 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		If it weren't for NATO, he wouldn't have stopped at Crimea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Our tax code is a little more complicated than that, but part of the reason why we pay so much is that our armed forces are required to protect all of you.

Who are we protecting them from?


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 2:53:17 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

If it weren't for NATO, he wouldn't have stopped at Crimea.

What evidence do you have that would indicate that?

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 3:08:19 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
All that you can actually show is that costs have risen slower than in the US. So, the only thing that you can claim now, is that by moving to a Universal care model, US Health care costs will rise slower than if we don't.


Well yes, that's the idea.

So you are opposed to a single-payer system because it would 'merely' keep costs from rising as steeply as before?

There's a reason people like you never get to upper management.



If the idea is that the cost won't rise as fast, why did you claim it was going to drop 1/3 or less in this post?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
If there's a reason for the comment besides making Hillary look better than Obama, my guess is they're laying the groundwork for another run at single payer.


Holy crap!

Can't have that!

Next thing you know, US citizens would be paying 1/3 or more less for healthcare than what was paid even before Obamacare.




I didn't say it would drop 1/3 overnight. I was pointing out the fact that US healthcare costs 50% more than anywhere else (fact), so that if the US were to get on a single-payer system, we could get a lot closer to the next expensive country in terms of cost. Which would mean ~ 33% lower cost sometime in the near future than what we'd otherwise be paying under the current system.


I didn't say you said it would drop overnight. You said it US citizens would be paying 1/3 less and then when Desi said "So, the only thing that you can claim now, is that by moving to a Universal care model, US Health care costs will rise slower than if we don't" you claimed that was the whole point.

So is it going to drop 1/3 or is it just going to go up slower? You can't have it both ways.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 3:23:41 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

I was pointing out the fact that US healthcare costs 50% more than anywhere else (fact), so that if the US were to get on a single-payer system, we could get a lot closer to the next expensive country in terms of cost. Which would mean ~ 33% lower cost sometime in the near future than what we'd otherwise be paying under the current system.


That's not "having it both ways," read the sentence carefully. If simple math as that is beyond you, get a tutor.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 3:29:03 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird


quote:

I was pointing out the fact that US healthcare costs 50% more than anywhere else (fact), so that if the US were to get on a single-payer system, we could get a lot closer to the next expensive country in terms of cost. Which would mean ~ 33% lower cost sometime in the near future than what we'd otherwise be paying under the current system.


That's not "having it both ways," read the sentence carefully. If simple math as that is beyond you, get a tutor.


Read which sentence carefully? First you claimed it was going down 1/3, then you claimed it was going to go up more slowly and now you claim this.

Perhaps next time you should say that instead of saying "Next thing you know, US citizens would be paying 1/3 or more less for healthcare than what was paid even before Obamacare." and "So you are opposed to a single-payer system because it would 'merely' keep costs from rising as steeply as before? "

and then stick with it instead of changing up everytime someone calls you one your shit.



< Message edited by thishereboi -- 10/8/2016 3:31:00 AM >

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 3:41:56 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
I might have overstated things with the "even before Obamacare" part (though likely not by much), but the rest stands, whether you can grasp or not.

What is it about reducing costs in the future by whatever amount do you not understand? That would be presented in any publication as "How to reduce costs by 1/3", for example.

Yes, I claimed that costs would eventually go down 1/3 vs, staying on the system at present.

I didn't say that costs would drop by 1/3 from the previous week if we went to a single payer system.

What a fuckwit.



< Message edited by Edwird -- 10/8/2016 3:46:40 AM >

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 3:50:56 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
"Discounting of Present Value" is what's taught in every finance class at every university.

What dullwits like you try to proclaim as "having it both ways."


(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 4:14:31 AM   
jimj7


Posts: 3
Joined: 8/22/2016
Status: offline 		The US actually spends over 2 1/2 times more than the average 'developed' country. Check it out on the PBS website. The results are not that good, either. Also, anyone remember the 3-article series the WSJ did a couple years ago? They found a (kidney?) operation was 950% (!) more expensive in the US than in Belgium, with a lower success rate. The root problem is the 'free' (corporate owned) market is only really competent at sucking every last dollar out of you. (And self-promotion.)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 4:50:25 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
~FR~

OK then.

Here's something for boi, Creative Dom, Desi, etc. ...

(hmm, somehow this seems reminiscent of calling the dogs to the bowl ... )

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/21/ceo-of-company-that-raised-the-price-of-old-pill-hundreds-of-dollars-overnight-calls-journalist-a-moron-for-asking-why/

From $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill, overnight.

That's, what, a 5,456 % increase?


Sing It With Me, Folks!;

That's The Way (I Like It)


(in reply to jimj7)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 6:17:19 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		epipen

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 6:23:03 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

If it weren't for NATO, he wouldn't have stopped at Crimea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Our tax code is a little more complicated than that, but part of the reason why we pay so much is that our armed forces are required to protect all of you.

Who are we protecting them from?




I think you just won the stupidity contest. Crimea likes Russia. So does half of Ukraine. So does Georgia, which ASKED for their help while the sheeplemedia reported Russia was taking over.

What, you only believe what's on the TV ?

T^T

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 6:32:27 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		and what of the other half of the people, some, if not many of whom fled crimea because not only do they not like Russia, were treated with violence by those who do, as well as by the russians?

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 10/8/2016 6:37:36 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 6:32:44 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Billions of home equity destroyed?!? That's billions of home equity that was artificially inflated in the first place (brought to you by your friends in The Fed since at least 1987 (Greenspan))!
The busts (of boom/bust cycles) suck, but are necessary. It's really the booms that should be feared. No booms, no busts. It's not rocket surgery.

Here's a book for you;
Chain of Blame by Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla. It might be in your local library.
If you make it through that, I've got more.


Housing prices were artificially inflated, fueled by cheap credit. Mortgage lenders, banks, and Wall Street were complicit, but without the cheap money policies The Fed has had over decades, things wouldn't have gotten so bad.

The Congressional Report on the recession tagged the SEC regulators for not catching the warning flags. That same report put the major onus of blame on The Fed for not doing it's job to prevent these situations.

Wall Street took advantage of cheap credit, lax regulators, and government complicity to inflate and then burst a housing bubble. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a role, too. Had they not bought almost any paper written, almost immediately, interest rates would have been higher on loans, and less qualified people wouldn't have been able to get a loan in the first place. But, with the ability to quickly get rid of a mortgage, lenders priced loans and qualifications according to the risk of loss to the lenders. If you have a loan on your books for only a week, what's your risk of default and loss? Damn near zero, if not zero. Write as many loans as you can, as fast as you can, shuttle the loans off to Fannie and Freddie, count your commissions and keep the ink flowing.

What allowed Wall Street to take advantage of it? The Fed and other lax regulators.




True enough Fannie and Freddie went outside their borrowing criteria (not lending or buying anymore mortgages) but didn't buy anymore mortgages than normal. They borrowed to buy MBS (mortgaged backed securities) and it was all...greed. They cooked the books and Raines retired with a $27 million bonus.

Yes the fed had low rates but the so-called 'conservative' right didn't care as long as they were all making money and it was as much to keep people building homes and the economy humming along as best it could.

Regulators did turn a blind eye but credit rating firms gave this shit paper AAA ratings which was bullshit. Wall street knew exactly what they were doing, engaged in fraud and got clean away with it...and billion$.

Oh and a single-payer medical marketplace is simply more cost-effective bringing in real competition if it were modeled after Germany. They have for-profit care, charity care and govt. run care, over 100 insurance companies competing for business, live longer with workers and the people generally in better health.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 10/8/2016 6:34:46 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 7:14:43 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimj7

The US actually spends over 2 1/2 times more than the average 'developed' country. Check it out on the PBS website. The results are not that good, either. Also, anyone remember the 3-article series the WSJ did a couple years ago? They found a (kidney?) operation was 950% (!) more expensive in the US than in Belgium, with a lower success rate. The root problem is the 'free' (corporate owned) market is only really competent at sucking every last dollar out of you. (And self-promotion.)


Actually I've read that that varies by location within the us. Something about an appendectomy costing like four or five times as much in one state than another. It was a while ago but I am sure the author of the article used the average, because anyone with a brain knows shit can happen during an invasive operation like that. They could find the onset of peritonitis which means irrigation and whatever, and of course more time on the table and more anesthesia and probably a few other things of which I am not aware not being a doctor.

However, the fact is it all costs more here. And it is not just the CAT scanners. But let's delve into that for a moment. A CAT scanner is an electronic device. Now when you get a twelve cent (literally) transistor and want to put it in a mil speced device od a "med" speced device it might cost fifty bucks. And there are a hundred of them in there at least.

So something they build in other countries might cost ten grand, here it is a hundred grand. That is not the end of it but realize they have to amortize the cost of this thing through its life cycle, which is limited. And it is, with certain equipment the manufacturer says "Scrap this motherfucker in seven years" it is illegal to use it anymore and it is illegal to sell it to other countries. In fact due to US tax code it must be simply melted down and not one part can be saved out of it. Alot of big companies that but high tech equipment, like oscilloscopes n shit have to do that. They are not allowed to scrap it or anything, it must be simply, and assuredly disposed of. And this raises their costs which raises your costs.

It is a fucking mess and I doubt it will be fixed in my lifetime. All this equipment costs has nothing to do with the fact that not only do doctors and nurses make alot of money, which I have no problem with because they do the work, as long as they are competent, but you got guys in the top office making a shit ton of money for doing nothing. And they are ruthless in business.

In Cleveland, Metro hospital is a public hospital. They have signs on the walls when you walk in saying so and that they are required to treat you. They used eminent domain quite a few times to grab up property for their parking lots, a dialysis center and whatever. Then they tried to go private. The city told them "Fuck you". Go private and move your shit the fuck out of here. One of the few things right i have seen government do.

But back to costs. One of the problems here is that insurance companies and hospitals have stockholders who expect dividends. When you are in control of a publicly traded company you are required to maximize profits even if that means fucking everyone over. Case law - Dodge v Ford.

Personally, I do not go to doctors unless i figure I got a 50/50 chance of being dead the next day. Now that I'm older I might not even go then. So I have fixed the problem as far as it goes for me. But others are different and I don't like seeing people get fucked over.

What's more we would have alot less of this shit if they didn't allow the sale of so much poison. The shit makes you fat and diabetic, and people are totally uneducated. The food pyramid is a fucking joke. People think they need to avoid fat. Some say all fat. Bullshit, fat does not become fat in your body, carbs become fat in your body.

So part of the reason that other countries have lower heathcare costs is that they eat better. How many McDonald's are there in England ? Here you can usually walk from one to another in half an hour at a leisurely pace. If not, in ten minutes you can walk to a Burger King or Wendy's. Want fries with that ? Yeah, and supersize everything and I want a DIET Coke. Like Wallach said "People go and get low fat turkey breast and then put a half a jar of mayonnaise on it".

I have been remiss in my eating lately but that is laziness. And I am now old enough to not really care. But if anyone does give a shit, read the ingredients, aviod HFCS, aspartame, and anything with carbs. If you must have carbs, which you do, do different things. Rice I think is the best, then potatoes, pasta is the worst. Beans have carbs but they also have protein, albeit incomplete protein. Not sure but I think they lack sulfur, which as a trace mineral is essential for the proper operation of the gall bladder and a few other things.

I researched all this for years and I still don't know it all. Nobody ever will. But part of the problem in the US is people do't even think of what they're putting into their body. We got more heart attacks, ore diabetes, more strokes than anywhere.

One of the growth markets is those powered wheelchairs. People get so fucking fat they can't even walk. And so weak they can't even propel a regular wheelchair.

And Obamacare comes along and shows the medical industry which makes money off this, deeper pockets.

T^T

(in reply to jimj7)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 9:47:23 AM   
RottenJohnny


Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006
Status: offline 		FR

I don't really care how you people try to package it. The bottom line for me is that paying for your health care is not my responsibility. I was willing to accept fixing the system for helping the poor before all this bullshit talk about universal coverage and Obamacare but that's where I draw the line. If you want to work together to find ways to make it easier for you to pay for your kidney disease and for me to pay for my high blood pressure meds without creating an entirely new Department of Bureaucracy, I'm all ears. Otherwise, keep your fucking hands out of my pocket. I still have to pay for bread and water.

_____________________________

"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 10:28:24 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Some idiotic simplistic and overreaching proclamation about "limited government" as one of your apparently core values doesn't exactly convey 'context' in that proclamation, does it?


Actually, it's your interpretation of my core value that is idiotic and simplistic. So, rather than consider there may be more than one interpretation, you attempt to bash me with whatever one works best (or the only one you can think of).

A big key to context, isn't just the specific words used, but other words around them. Thus, a "Conservative interpretation of the Constitution" just might lend a little context to what's meant by "Limited Government," no?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 10:32:41 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
I didn't say you said it would drop overnight. You said it US citizens would be paying 1/3 less and then when Desi said "So, the only thing that you can claim now, is that by moving to a Universal care model, US Health care costs will rise slower than if we don't" you claimed that was the whole point.
So is it going to drop 1/3 or is it just going to go up slower? You can't have it both ways.


It would be great if we could see a drop in actual costs and a slower rise. That would be epic, but there is just no proof that happens. It could happen, but I think the method for doing so would cause a problem that would make things very ugly, but, eventually, we'd have lower costs and then a lower rate of increase.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 11:10:33 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
~FR~
OK then.
Here's something for boi, Creative Dom, Desi, etc. ...
(hmm, somehow this seems reminiscent of calling the dogs to the bowl ... )
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/21/ceo-of-company-that-raised-the-price-of-old-pill-hundreds-of-dollars-overnight-calls-journalist-a-moron-for-asking-why/
From $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill, overnight.
That's, what, a 5,456 % increase?
Sing It With Me, Folks!;
That's The Way (I Like It)


Why is that drug the only one on the market? What happens, in the Marketplace, when there are profits, especially huge profits? It brings in competition, doesn't it? As a matter of fact....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/express-scripts-will-offer-1-alternative-to-750-daraprim-pill/

A drug compounding firm is going to combine the active in ingredient in Daraprim and another to limit the side effects, and will be available through the US's "largest pharmacy benefits manager."
    quote:

    The Express Scripts decision means that a cheaper alternative to Daraprim created by Imprimis Pharmaceuticals will now be available to about 25 million customers through its formulary. What those customers pay will depend on their insurance coverage. That could mean prescriptions that come with a co-payment as low as $10 or $20 for the whole bottle of pills.


This, hopefully, will prove to be an economic benefit for Imprimis, and cost Turing.

Fucking crazy how this shit works, innit?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 11:23:06 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
True enough Fannie and Freddie went outside their borrowing criteria (not lending or buying anymore mortgages) but didn't buy anymore mortgages than normal. They borrowed to buy MBS (mortgaged backed securities) and it was all...greed. They cooked the books and Raines retired with a $27 million bonus.
Yes the fed had low rates but the so-called 'conservative' right didn't care as long as they were all making money and it was as much to keep people building homes and the economy humming along as best it could.


Note that I stated that the low rates by The Fed have been going on since, at least, Greenspan, implicating the GOP's tacit support.

quote:

Regulators did turn a blind eye but credit rating firms gave this shit paper AAA ratings which was bullshit. Wall street knew exactly what they were doing, engaged in fraud and got clean away with it...and billion$.


They should have had to sit with their shit paper and take the hit. But, here comes Big Gov (under Bush, which really pissed me off) to bail them out. What happened tot he credit rating firms?

quote:

Oh and a single-payer medical marketplace is simply more cost-effective bringing in real competition if it were modeled after Germany. They have for-profit care, charity care and govt. run care, over 100 insurance companies competing for business, live longer with workers and the people generally in better health.


I don't know much about the German model. The UK Model has been discussed on these boards quite a bit, though.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare - 10/8/2016 3:14:22 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

FR

I don't really care how you people try to package it. The bottom line for me is that paying for your health care is not my responsibility.



Whether it's referred to as being your 'responsibility' or not, you are helping to pay for damage of others' vehicles or houses or health problems with your private insurance premiums, as others' premiums help pay for yours.

I guess insurance is just an inherently commie enterprise.

(in reply to RottenJohnny)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.125