Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

If our country didn't believe healthcare was a right, you wouldn't see so many uninsured people being treated in ER.

Most doctors aren't victim of frivolous lawsuits. This is a canard thrown about by the right wing. Most corporations believe ALL lawsuits are frivolous, however if a doctor can document his treatment for a patient as being accord with the latest medical standards, there is no case against him.

And doctors IMO don't order redundant tests to cover their asses, they are double and triple billing your insurance provider. It's a money game. If the cost was the same whether a patient received one X-ray or 10, most doctors wouldn't order additional tests.

When a doctor prescribes the wrong medication in the wrong dosage, or misdiagnoses an ailment 90% of his colleagues would not, how is a patient made whole is such an instance?? By having a doctor say, "Yo, my bad,"?

Despite rumors to the contrary, there are some seriously shitty doctors out here, people who cheated their way through med school and those who should never have been given a medical degree.

I'm 50/50 on caps for lawsuits.

Yes we need major reform. No we don't need health insurance companies to be the middle men between doctors and patients, HMOs who provide no real value to either us or our physicians yet skim billions of dollars off our premiums and still deny care.

What's really depressing IMO is that the healthcare reform debate is a very complicated issue yet most Americans don't seem to have the patience to deal with all the complexities involved. Instead they allow healthcare to be demagogued by HMO surrogates and mental midgets like Sarah Palin,(death panels, etc.).

The GOP has become the mouthpiece of HMOs who have been spending millions in an endless media assault to change the debate and never let healthcare be publicly funded.

If the the Federal government is good enough to run the military, they are good enough to run our healthcare system.

Americans at least deserve the option of going with a private insurer, or choosing a government run healthcare program.

You know, competition.

 

Yes, you let insurance companies keep doing what they're doing. They provide coverage to people who pay for it. There is nothing wrong with what insurance companies do. Making it a federal mandate is wrong.

Your second point is about the rising cost of healthcare. But you have to realize that providing medical care is expensive. But America provides a high level of patient care that I'm willing to pay for. If I need heart surgery to determine whether I live or die, I don't care if I go bankrupt. The old saying "you get what you pay for" is definitely true. Sure healthcare is cheaper in other countries, but when you show up and they have a rock and a chisel for your open heart surgery I'm sure you'll quickly run back to America.

 

#1: The penalty imposed for not buying a policy is very likely to be less than the cost of insurance for a great many people. This, combined with the requirement that insurance companies may not deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition, means that a large number of people will forgo signing up for a policy, knowing that they a) will save money and b) can always sign up for insurance if they turn out to develop a serious medical condition. Thus, the actual revenues will far way short of projections.

Not true, The federal penalties start small, but eventually ramp up to $695 per year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher.

The point is that people will forego signing up for a policy because they know they can get covered at any time because pre-existing conditions do not matter. So with lower projected revenues that money needs to be made up somewhere else.


#2: The government has no ability to enforce the penalty for noncompliance.

Not true, the penalties, will be imposed through the individual’s personal income tax return

Remember the people you're trying to help- the poor, elderly, college grad with no job, etc. So you're telling me that you're going to take money from their personal income tax when they already make poverty wages? And what happens when people don't file their taxes?

#3: Mandating that people buy a health insurance policy simply because they are alive is arguably unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already decided to take up this issue and will begin hearing oral arguments this month. I note that a recent USA/Gallup poll shows that an overwhelming 72% of Americans believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The mandate is also a way of hiding the fact that young people will effectively be paying a huge new tax in order to subsidize older people.

There are plenty of precedents for legally mandating certain behaviors (seat belts, car insurance, ect.) As for the cost, not true again, as I already showed in prior posts, young people or the healthy will not be held to the same standard as those who need more medical care.

Seat belts and care insurance are for driving vehicles. Owning and driving a car is not a fundamental right. People have a choice whether they want to drive. Living is a completely separate thing altogether. And yes, younger people will bear a higher burden than the elderly. The same way it is with Social Security.

#4: Regulating the price which insurance companies must charge for policies, coupled with a requirement that companies must rebate to their customers the amount by which their loss ratios fall below 90%, effectively turns these companies into government-run enterprises and would likely result in the effective nationalization of the healthcare industry. That is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and of a Supreme Court requirement "that any firm in a regulated market be allowed to recover a risk-adjusted competitive rate of return on its accumulated capital investment."

It's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...r-health-care/

It is unconstitutional for the government to enter a free market arena and not have a conflict. If insurance companies are regulated by the government, how many thousands of layoffs will those companies have to do in order to be competitive under the new guidelines and restrictions?

#5: A government-imposed restructuring of the healthcare industry can't possibly improve our healthcare system, and is extremely likely to make it worse. As Don Boudreaux has noted, "Trying to restructure an industry that constitutes one-sixth of the U.S. economy is ... so complicated that it's impossible to accomplish without risking catastrophic failure." No collection of laws or government bureaucrats can achieve anything close to the efficiency that free markets can deliver; the demise of socialism is the most obvious proof of this. Government control of healthcare will inevitably result in higher prices and rationing, leaving everyone worse off. Acknowledging this reality, the CBO in March '12 calculated the cost of ObamaCare to be $1.76 trillion over a decade, almost double the $940 billion forecast when the bill was signed into law.

Big time false on the cost doubling...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...g-has-doubled/

The CBO stated the $1.76 trillion over a decade figure, not me. Since the CBO has been thrown around on this forum I thought I would use their March 2012 data.

#6: In cases wherein companies find that complying with the law would result in large increases in healthcare premiums that would threaten employees' access to a plan, the Dept. of Health and Human Services may grant a waiver to the company. As evidence of the first five fatal flaws accumulates, and as healthcare insurance companies continue to raise premiums to pay for the unintended consequences of government attempting to regulate an entire industry and hundreds of millions of people, more and more companies are likely to apply for waivers. To date, over 1200 companies have been granted waivers. At some point the whole edifice will come crashing down of its own weight.

Pure conjecture

It's conjecture that 1200 companies have been granted waivers?

#7: The individual mandate violates centuries of contract law, since in order to be valid, contracts to purchase health insurance must be entered into freely.

 

James the one thing that both conservatives and liberals agreed upon is that leaving the healthcare system "as is" is unsustainable due to the rapidly increasing costs. Healthcare was not just "expensive", there was rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of the system.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/we_need_reform.html

I'm not advocating Canada's system of healthcare, my wealthy in-laws pay an insane amount of taxes, that being said, the standard of care my father in law recently received for a blockage in a major artery was second to none, a far cry from a rock and a chisel.

 

I agree that rising healthcare cost is the more important issue. But instituting a federally mandated health system at a time when we already can't wrap our arms around Social Security and Medicare is the wrong path in my opinion. With certain people already paying 45% of their money to the government annually, do we go back to the days where we pay 70% of our income to the government?

And I wasn't referring to Canada with my "rock and a chisel" statement . Canada provides a very high level of patient care. I was referring to third world health care. But racial makeup is a big factor. Canada only has 3.5% Blacks and Hispanics while the USA has about 29%. These races have a higher proportionate amount of obesity, diabetes, liver disease, and infectious diseases than Whites. This a big reason why America has high costs and one way to reduce it is by investing more into preventative care and check ups.

 

There is everything wrong with what insurance companies do because of the way they do it. I don't know how many people I know personally who get all this medical taken care of at the end of the year because if they don't it rolls over they LOSE the benefits they PAID for. Maybe their is nothing wrong with that in your eyes but I can bet you all the money you ever paid in taxes or health care that if you went in to any store and only walked out with maybe half of what you paid for you would be mad.

In most cases when companies do that it's called "theft" but for some reason or another when an HMO does its called "business"

 

Source:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-spending-stimulus-budget-historic-trends.php

[youtube]FiW5I95R5xg[/youtube]

YouTube quote:

/end of thread.

 

Health insurance companies are like every other insurance company on the planet. There are different plans that offer different coverage and you choose what best fits your life. I understand health care is expensive. I have two young kids so trips to the doctor's office are a regular occurrence for me. But I understand that quality medical care comes at a cost.

 

So tell me why conservatives are against a public option if it's all about offering consumers alternatives for health insurance??? Surely the big bad HMOs who offer clearly superior healthcare coverage aren't afraid to compete against the stupid, ol' incompetent Uncle Sam??

It's a scam man.

Health insurance premiums aren't just 'expensive', they are excessive, exploitative and borderline extortionist.

We need to all pay into a bigger pool to lower health costs.

THe status quo is unsustainable.

 

This thing right there. That.

 

That's funny because my car insurance company doesn't grossly inflate my premiums because they can. Also..I don't have to get a lot of work done at the end of the year because I'm severely overcharged to begin with and I lose all that money if I don't need the services I overpaid for in the first place. I understand that the premise of insurance is a just incase deal. However, everyone gets sick but not everyone gets into a car accident.

Also, and I know my stupid is showing again, forgive me will you?
Normal business practice is when you are charged for a service you didn't use..you recieve a refund. I've gotten them from phone companies, electric companies. The premise there is that I was charged a standard rate for something and then something lead to me not using what I was charged for. If any other company did that they could be sued. Not only do insurance companies charge inflated fees but they keep it as PROFIT if it's not spent before the plan turns over.

How this is even allowed is beyond me.

Perhaps the us government should sue the HMOs and finance a medical plan for all the poor off the money from that.
Then at least the HMOs would be somewhat redeemed for their more than shady business practices.

 

The problem is that a public option creates a government run agency in direct competition with private industry. And the government can regulate the private industry and lower its own prices. This is a competitive advantage that will cause the collapse of the private insurance industry.

Plus, the federal government's health insurance plan would be financed entirely by premiums without subsidy from the Federal government.The plans required the repayment of "seed money" to the Treasury over a ten year period. So here are two immediate problems:

1) Premiums will start low but eventually get higher. The fact is if you have people with a lot of kids or the elderly; they visit the hospital way more often. So you cannot keep premiums low because that cost will have to be covered by somebody. So if you join the public option, be prepared to pay a high amount to cover those who go to the doctor once a week.

2) Also, if the seed money needs to be paid in 10 years be prepared for rates to go higher to make ends meet.

The simple fact is healthcare costs money and it doesn't matter who the insurer is. This is a case of idealism vs. reality. Ideally everyone could have low cost healthcare and we'd live in a world of rainbows and butterflies. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

 

Health insurers raise premiums to cover the rising costs of healthcare. They don't set the price, they just need to make sure they have enough money so that you can be covered when you need it. So yes, your premiums will always increase as long as costs increase.

And car insurance works the same way. If you get into more accidents your premium goes up. If you live in an area where there are more accidents, your premiums will be higher. So insurance companies operate the same way.

And the only way you can get a refund is if you cancel your policy. But you cannot be refunded if you're still on the plan receiving coverage.

 

Then thats a poor business model. Your health should not be for profit in the first place. There are basic services that we deem as rights. Why not health coverage?

 

Riddle me this then.
So lets just say...for shits and giggles...one year i pay $3000 dollars in premiums but I see a doctor 2x for non emergency medical care and that comes to a total of say...400 dollars max. Short visits...nothing life threatening. whatever, ok?

So the total that is paid out by my insurance company is say 340$ because in addition to paying a premium every month i also have co-pays.

Are you seriously telling me that out of a total of 3000$ dollars i spent on premiums for health care I might or might not use...of which only 340$ was actually paid out by my HMO, the HMO gets to keep 2660 dollars of mine. And that is to cover the higher cost of care? For whom exactly is the higher cost of health care being spent? Me? Nah...I only spent that 340$.
And if it's not spent on me but it's spent on other people who pay into the same HMO but need more medical care than I need how is that any different than me paying a higher rate of tax that goes to help someone who needs medical care coverage because they can't afford it in the first place?
Is the only difference that one DESERVES it because they pay for it and one doesn't?

Thats a really shitty basis to deny health care to people on.

 

Everything in life costs money even the basic necessities of life. You need to food to live? It costs you money. You need water to live? It costs you money. I don't see McDonald's and Dasani handing out food and water to everyone just because they need it. You need a surgery to live? It will cost you money.

Healthcare is costly because it literally saves lives. The money has to come from somewhere. This country has some of the finest medical professionals in the world, we have state of the art equipment at hospitals, we have labs testing and studying diseases, we have pharmaceutical companies making drugs to keep us healthy. That comes at a cost.

 

This is where choice comes in. If you know that you will go in on average only 2x per year and its for a cold...then get cheaper coverage. But understand that you will not have as much coverage in an emergency situation, which most health issues are. Premiums are high because health issues cannot be predicted. You can be completely fine one day and then collapse with a heart attack the next day. So what happens when inexplicably you need heart surgery? Are you going to complain when your insurance company writes a huge check to cover most of the bills. That's where your $2660 goes.

I pay car insurance every month and have been in one accident in my life. Does it suck writing that check every month? Yes. But will I be happy as hell the day I actually need it and don't have to pay? Yes.

 

How can a political party that claims to be all about morals and values be the same party that is willing to profit off sick people and think nothing of it??? That's not putting your country first is it?

You'd be surprised at how many people would rather live with an illness as opposed to going to the hospital because they don't wanna be bankrupted by the very same system that you and your ilk hold very dear.