Global Warming News

[westcliffe01]

I would say it is the governments job to do what the people want them to do.

If the health care situation gets worse (= more expensive) it will simply implode with employers ceasing to contribute and shrinking numbers unable to prop up the greedy giants (hospitals, drug companies etc). Once the sick people have been foreclosed on (that just lowered your home price some more), they will all turn up in our emergency rooms and the state budgets which have to pick up the tab will shortly all be shot, and guess what ? We will all BE FACING MORE TAXES to make up the deficit.

Wow ! So lets deal with runaway health cost by simply sitting on our hands and waiting until only the ultra rich can afford insurance or real "intervention" and just wait for the crash. I can see why we should pay our politicians to sit on their asses and call each other names across the aisles while getting nothing done. Yes, the much criticized auto industry and banking sector could all take a lesson from this professionalism.

All this is beside the point and irrelevant. It's not the federal government's job to run healthcare.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I would say it is the governments job to do what the people want them to do.

If the health care situation gets worse (= more expensive) it will simply implode with employers ceasing to contribute and shrinking numbers unable to prop up the greedy giants (hospitals, drug companies etc). Once the sick people have been foreclosed on (that just lowered your home price some more), they will all turn up in our emergency rooms and the state budgets which have to pick up the tab will shortly all be shot, and guess what ? We will all BE FACING MORE TAXES to make up the deficit.

Wow ! So lets deal with runaway health cost by simply sitting on our hands and waiting until only the ultra rich can afford insurance or real "intervention" and just wait for the crash. I can see why we should pay our politicians to sit on their asses and call each other names across the aisles while getting nothing done. Yes, the much criticized auto industry and banking sector could all take a lesson from this professionalism.

Fair enought, The majority of the American people(according to every poll I seen) want's nothing to do with "the public option". Further saw a survey today that put "Global warming" at the bottom of a list of concerns of Americans.
What I really want is some politician making health care decisions for me and my family, Great Idea.

 

[Loren49]

Government (medicare ) has been helping for many years - ask anyone over 65 and see if they wish medicare would go away or all military who are covered under the VA. I'll take there answers over a for-profit insurance company. My insurance (me and my wife) costs $12000 dollars per year and when I was in Florida last winter they did not cover a number of things needed while there because we were out of network. I would have had medicare coverage if I was 45 years older. Doesn't look that bad to me. How does a couple with a family buy insurance if they are making < $30000, not possible. How many businesses don't start or expand because of the costs for them to provide insurance? (also politicians make your decisions on defense, security, trade, education, and health after 65 or if you are poor or uninsured etc.)

Not sure where you looked but here are some polls on a public option:
New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option : NPR

Liberals keep fighting for public option - First Read - msnbc.com

Loren

 

[Ken45101]

I would say it is the governments job to do what the people want them to do.

In a simple sense, you are right. BUT the government cannot afford to do what the people want them to do!

And that is the disconnect: People think "the government" can provide "free care". Hopefully we all here realize that it cannot. In fact, it cannot even afford what it is doing today.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Government (medicare ) has been helping for many years - ask anyone over 65 and see if they wish medicare would go away or all military who are covered under the VA. I'll take there answers over a for-profit insurance company. My insurance (me and my wife) costs $12000 dollars per year and when I was in Florida last winter they did not cover a number of things needed while there because we were out of network. I would have had medicare coverage if I was 45 years older. Doesn't look that bad to me. How does a couple with a family buy insurance if they are making < $30000, not possible. How many businesses don't start or expand because of the costs for them to provide insurance? (also politicians make your decisions on defense, security, trade, education, and health after 65 or if you are poor or uninsured etc.)

Not sure where you looked but here are some polls on a public option:
New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option : NPR

Liberals keep fighting for public option - First Read - msnbc.com

Loren

You should really go back and read all three of these polls,
They don't indicate what you think they do. In the Huffington Post article the support DROPPED to 43% when the question was reworded to include "choice
In the MSNBC poll, they polled "Obama voters" Well there is a fair and balanced poll
The NPR poll is so vague that it could be interpreted anyway you want "the support for the public option was broad and widespread" Really, show me the questions asked, and what was the sample, not widespread and broad.

 

[westcliffe01]

How do you "know" this, O wise one ? I lived this experience and we got what America is famous for, a 2 class system. We already have the 2 class system here today, all we are talking about if the contrast growing by orders of magnitude and state debt piling up, which someone is going to have to pay (republican or democrat alike).

Unfortunately, you sound awfully smug. I am well aware how easy it is to experience major life changes. How many middle class people made the switch to becoming indigent through layoffs, wall street collapse and all the other calamities people have experienced this past year ? Through these unfortunate events, they should now have less of a right to life and medical care than you, simply because of their financial means. And others, clinging to survival, should be foreclosed and evicted due to the insufficient coverage of their medical plan for some medical condition.

You sure you didn't pick up any thoughts from your research on ****** and Stalin yourself ?

I want YOU to reread what you just wrote about "state run hospitals".I agree. And that is exactly what you will get if you don't let the free market decide on the cost of health care.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

How do you "know" this, O wise one ? I lived this experience and we got what America is famous for, a 2 class system. We already have the 2 class system here today, all we are talking about if the contrast growing by orders of magnitude and state debt piling up, which someone is going to have to pay (republican or democrat alike).

Unfortunately, you sound awfully smug. I am well aware how easy it is to experience major life changes. How many middle class people made the switch to becoming indigent through layoffs, wall street collapse and all the other calamities people have experienced this past year ? Through these unfortunate events, they should now have less of a right to life and medical care than you, simply because of their financial means. And others, clinging to survival, should be foreclosed and evicted due to the insufficient coverage of their medical plan for some medical condition.

You sure you didn't pick up any thoughts from your research on ****** and Stalin yourself ?

Hopefully, you will take up my suggestion and reread some of your earlier posts and perhaps glean something useful to help you in your quest to become self sufficient
Lacking that perhaps you should rethink your continued stay in a country that you feel has so many problems, perhaps, say a more socialist oriented one.
As you seem to feel that you are entitled to"free" health care, a quick jaunt over the Florida Keys would get you to
a place that offers just that.
Sad, really when you realize that you are losing an discussion that you feel the need to insult.
Best of luck. I think you'll need it.

 

[MikePA]

Every other industrialized country feels different and are spending less with better results. But if you are happy with over spending by 1.5 trillion that's your right. I feel that basic health care should be a responsibility of government. I'm not convinced that we would be better off without medicare, medicade, and the variety of state programs that cover children of uninsured children. It wouldn't seem as irrelevant if you lost everything because of a family illness. A large number of people who were insured when they became ill still lose everything in this country. My opinion is that as the wealthiest country in the world we should not let this happen.

Don't play the game with me. What game? Why, the refuge of all people who have lost the argument, i.e., you accuse anyone who is not in favor of the federal government nationalizing 17% of the private sector of being in favor of all sorts of 'bad things' like not providing healthcare to children. You also confuse health care and health insurance. With 1 trillion dollars, we could give, via a tax credit, everyone who can't afford health insurance, money to buy their own private sector policy. This is possible because there aren't 47 million people without health insurance once you subtract illegal aliens and people who can afford it but don't buy it. However, those who want the federal government to violate the constitution and nationalize it, don't want to hear solutions that don't involve growing government.

It's another interesting contrast between France and the US. When times get hard, like now, people in France were protesting for the government to do more. In the US, there were protests for the government to get out of the way. Oh, and if the government is supposed to do what the majority of the citizens want, the majority of the citizens don't want to nationalize health care.

 

[keegs]

Don't play the game with me. What game? Why, the refuge of all people who have lost the argument, i.e., you accuse anyone who is not in favor of the federal government nationalizing 17% of the private sector of being in favor of all sorts of 'bad things' like not providing healthcare to children. You also confuse health care and health insurance. With 1 trillion dollars, we could give, via a tax credit, everyone who can't afford health insurance, money to buy their own private sector policy. This is possible because there aren't 47 million people without health insurance once you subtract illegal aliens and people who can afford it but don't buy it. However, those who want the federal government to violate the constitution and nationalize it, don't want to hear solutions that don't involve growing government.

It's another interesting contrast between France and the US. When times get hard, like now, people in France were protesting for the government to do more. In the US, there were protests for the government to get out of the way. Oh, and if the government is supposed to do what the majority of the citizens want, the majority of the citizens don't want to nationalize health care.

Mike,

The healthcare bills being proposed provide subsides to those who can't afford healthcare based on means testing. This sounds very much like what you're suggesting (although I'm sure there's sarcasim in your suggesting the writing of checks to solve this problem)

Medicare and Medicaid make up about half of all healthcare spending today. Providers of both operate in very much a fee for service arrangement. Now you can say that that's government run healthcare but I'd contend that that characterizaion is debatable.

The bills being proposed in congress do very little to change how healthcare services are delivered (thanks to all the influence those special interests...you know ...the ones all you conservative feel already don't have enough influence in our polity ) have brought to bear on the issue.

I don't think anyone isn't in favor of competition being employed to hold down costs. To the extent it's possible, I say bring it on. The attempts so far though, and I'm thinking specifically on the public side of the Bush Administration's Medicare Advantage and Plan D programs and on the private side, the HSA's and low cost high deductable plans, have had mixed results.

And competition doesn't fully address the very nature of the cost problems we face. That is to say a very large part of that 17% of GDP spending goes to a relatively small number of very sick and uninsurable people.

 

[Loren49]

Mike-
If you look at this site you will see that just under half of our cost is currently public money. If a medicare type program covered everyone we would be much more efficient with our public dollars. Currently there are many overlapping programs which when added to the private portion makes for a very inefficient system. Seems as though the Court system is not as sure as you that this is unconstitutional. (about 7% of GDP is public money for healthcare programs) Lots of information and comparisons on this site.

Comparing U.S. Healthcare Spending with Other OECD Countries -- Seeking Alpha

FallbrockFarmer-
The survey of the doctors looks pretty straight forward - what's unclear about the pie chart? The site below tells the guidelines of SurveyUSA poll - looks fair to me. If your belief is strong enough this won't help.

SurveyUSA News Poll #15699

If you look at the ranking of our system done by any outside organization we do not compare well - I believe we're ranked about 40th by the UN. I know - they're biased -how do they dare judge us?

Loren

 

[MikePA]

And competition doesn't fully address the very nature of the cost problems we face. That is to say a very large part of that 17% of GDP spending goes to a relatively small number of very sick and uninsurable people.

Good grief, you might as well complain about the earth revolving around the sun. Sick people use health care. Older people are sicker than younger people. Therefore, older people use more health care, i.e., money and the only way you reduce costs is to reduce care. The Medicare and Medicaid models which simply pay less, don't scale because once the private sector is gone, it won't be there to pick up the difference. What is so hard to understand about this? You reduce costs by reducing care.

As I said, there are solutions to this problem (assuming one exists) that don't involve creating a huge, new government bureaucracies. People who think should ask themselves why it's being pushed so hard by people in government and by people who believe in government. People can quote all kinds of statistics and compare us to other countries (which is a pointless exercise), but the bottom line for me is, this is not the proper role for government under our constitution. Every increase in taxes is a reduction in our freedom. Why? Because it's the government saying they know how to spend our money better than we do. With the government controlling health care, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives by tying it to a 'health issue'. This isn't a theoretical observation nor a 'black helicopter' induced fear. It's already happening. Look at New York City. Nanny Bloomberg is 'suggesting' companies reduce the amount of sodium in their products. Arguing about whether we should eat less sodium misses the point. It's not the role of government to legislate this. It's my choice, now. But it wont be when government runs health care. They will simply legislate direct bans/limits on sodium in food, or tax it out of existence. They have already proposed something like this for fattening foods and drinks with 'too much' sugar. 'Concerned scientists' (think global warming) will report additive 'X' or product 'y' causes Z deaths and pretty soon it will be addressed by legislation.

 

[Loren49]

MikePA,
Also note that if we had that 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars we don't have to spend it on coverage - the deal is everybody is covered under France, England, Canada, etc. That amount would balance our federal budget this year!
I have a friend who is now doing well after having a very nasty cancer about 5 years ago. His wife just divorced him and she had their health coverage through her job. Nobody wants to cover him at anything affordable. He is in his early fifties. If he gets sick before 65 and its serious he could go bankrupt. Any of us could be in that situation.

Loren

 

[MikePA]

Also note that if we had that 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars we don't have to spend it on coverage - the deal is everybody is covered under France, England, Canada, etc. That amount would balance our federal budget this year!

I give up. If you really believe the government projections that this will save money, you are lost. The 10 year projection is accurate but irrelevant. Any bill can do this by collecting taxes for the first 3 or 4 years and only spending money for 6 or 7 of the 10 year period. What about 15 years out? 20 years out? But please don't use the euphemism 'spend it on coverage'. It will be a reduction in care. And by the way, what is on the table is NOT like the other countries. Everyone isn't covered by the same plan, e.g., if you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, you get to keep your 'Cadillac' plan. If you are not covered by a 'collective bargaining agreement' (another euphemism for member of a union), you get a 40% tax on your plan, i.e., you will lose it so your heath care benefits will get worse.

Again, this all comes down to people's views about the proper role of government. If you believe the government should do this, the details are irrelevant.

 

[Ken45101]

The health care debate is interesting, but can we perhaps get back to the topic: Global Warming News? That's a big enough topic by itself.

Just my $.02
Ken

 

[20 20]

Here ya go Ken45101, I was wondering the same thing

South chilled by Arctic winds, record snow in East - Yahoo! News

I thought global warming was...well warmer than this

Have a great day.

 

[keegs]

Good grief, you might as well complain about the earth revolving around the sun. Sick people use health care. Older people are sicker than younger people. Therefore, older people use more health care, i.e., money and the only way you reduce costs is to reduce care. The Medicare and Medicaid models which simply pay less, don't scale because once the private sector is gone, it won't be there to pick up the difference. What is so hard to understand about this? You reduce costs by reducing care.

As I said, there are solutions to this problem (assuming one exists) that don't involve creating a huge, new government bureaucracies. People who think should ask themselves why it's being pushed so hard by people in government and by people who believe in government. People can quote all kinds of statistics and compare us to other countries (which is a pointless exercise), but the bottom line for me is, this is not the proper role for government under our constitution. Every increase in taxes is a reduction in our freedom. Why? Because it's the government saying they know how to spend our money better than we do. With the government controlling health care, they will be able to control every aspect of our lives by tying it to a 'health issue'. This isn't a theoretical observation nor a 'black helicopter' induced fear. It's already happening. Look at New York City. Nanny Bloomberg is 'suggesting' companies reduce the amount of sodium in their products. Arguing about whether we should eat less sodium misses the point. It's not the role of government to legislate this. It's my choice, now. But it wont be when government runs health care. They will simply legislate direct bans/limits on sodium in food, or tax it out of existence. They have already proposed something like this for fattening foods and drinks with 'too much' sugar. 'Concerned scientists' (think global warming) will report additive 'X' or product 'y' causes Z deaths and pretty soon it will be addressed by legislation.

Mike....you forgot to mention the 1 gallon flush...

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Mike-
If you look at this site you will see that just under half of our cost is currently public money. If a medicare type program covered everyone we would be much more efficient with our public dollars. Currently there are many overlapping programs which when added to the private portion makes for a very inefficient system. Seems as though the Court system is not as sure as you that this is unconstitutional. (about 7% of GDP is public money for healthcare programs) Lots of information and comparisons on this site.

Comparing U.S. Healthcare Spending with Other OECD Countries -- Seeking Alpha

FallbrockFarmer-
The survey of the doctors looks pretty straight forward - what's unclear about the pie chart? The site below tells the guidelines of SurveyUSA poll - looks fair to me. If your belief is strong enough this won't help.

SurveyUSA News Poll #15699

If you look at the ranking of our system done by any outside organization we do not compare well - I believe we're ranked about 40th by the UN. I know - they're biased -how do they dare judge us?

Loren

Good Morning,
The reason that I don't think that the "public option"is a good idea, is that it will drive any "private" company out of business.
Think about it, You own a company that is competing against an entity that unlimited resources(tax dollars) and that has no impetus to make a profit. Plus your competition also makes the rules of the game. Tell me how long you will be in business?
I used to have a number of rental units, most of them were in what you would call working class areas. Good solid working people, Usually didn't have any problems with behaviour, or collecting the rent.
Then a few of the landlords began taking Section 8 housing subsidy tenants in, Hey a government check in the mail every month, what could be wrong with that.
Well----- what was wrong with it was that you soon found out what was a fairly nice neighborhood, became a crime infested slum. Because you found out that you could no longer screen your tenants,you followed the governments rules, and took anybody thay sent you.A lot of the
landlords had lost the impetus to keep up their properties and soon the neighborhood was one that nobody would buy in, and you were now completely controlled by the government.
The same thing will happen with health care and although,we are off topic again, I would say that health care and AGW are two sides of the same coin. If the federal government can declare the the air that I exhale is a pollutant, what power do they NOT have over me or you.
impetus to keep up their properties