Obama offers universal health care plan

[mykidslovedogs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat Are you ignoring the fact that we are going to pay back billions of dollars from the war - i.e. higher taxes? I think you should worry about that before you take aim at some form of universal healthcare coverage. A lengthy war with unclear goals/outcomes will suck the life out our society before universal healthcare coverage will.

We already spend more than the current war spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone, and that doesn't even cover 1/2 of the USA population, so to me, the war costs are minimal compared to what the cost of gov't sponsored coverage will eventually be....especially if we give it away with little or no out of pocket responsibility for recipients.

[megacorp-firee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee Yeah, yeah yeah. But would you like an extra colonoscopy? :confused:

Please stop with the C references ... my b*tts starting to tingle ....

[wildcat]

I think it would be incredibly hard to prove that statement.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat I think it would be incredibly hard to prove that statement.

That his butt's starting to tingle?

[megacorp-firee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR That his butt's starting to tingle?

I think I can verify that it does.... but how would I prove it?

[mykidslovedogs]

Wildcat:

Click here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget.../outlook-6.jpg

and here:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/defense-spend.gif

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fedcomp.gif

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/clip_image0041.jpg

[Martha]

We just came back from the grocery store.

[wildcat]

Graphs, although nice to look at, tell me very little.

I always question how the gov or other politically motivated websites/think tanks report the amount of money spent on the war. It is very difficult to quantify war spending which I think is always higher that what is truly reported.

For example, I think you also have to look at the lost of human life. Aside from the atrocities of losing an American soldier on the battle field, these are young people who would otherwise have been tax paying/productive citizens of our society. The future taxes and benefits they would have contributed are gone. None of that shows up on a graph.


Besides, last time I checked, the reported cost of the war continues to rise and far exceed estimates. However, the point I want to emphasize is --- what benefit can we expect by spending as much as we have on Iraq vs. what benefit can we expect by not spending that money and putting towards the needs of our society? Regardless of the amount --- and you can be right on that issue for all I care --- I believe the benefit is at least obtainable.

[mykidslovedogs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat Graphs, although nice to look at, tell me very little. Besides, last time I checked, the reported cost of the war continues to rise and far exceed estimates. However, the point I want to emphasize is --- what benefit can we expect by spending as much as we have on Iraq vs. what benefit can we expect by not spending that money and putting towards the needs of our society? Regardless of the amount --- and you can be right on that issue for all I care --- I believe the benefit is at least obtainable.

It may be obtainable, but if we've already got nearly 70 Trillion of unfunded Medicare obligations, how much more will we have when we nationalize coverage for the rest of the USA with no out of pocket responsibility for recipients? Ending the war could pay for a small fraction of that, but then you've got to get the rest of the money from somewhere. All I'm saying is that Obama is making empty promises....to say that the only change will be a lower premium for you. <maybe a lower premium, but, IMO, those charts, especially the unfunded Medicare obligations, make me think we are all looking at big tax hikes down the line, especially for those currently making more than $75,000/yr, so I really don't see how we can afford to just give away free care to the rest of the country.

[wildcat]

Again very hard to quantify b/c you don't know what the upside could potentially be by offering some form of universal healthcare coverage. It isn't just cost, it also benefit.

If a student is interested in college but frets over the cost and decides not to go in order to save money, there is a solid chance she/he passed up on higher future earnings and career prospects. Doesn't make the forgone money that would have been spent on school look like such a great idea.

You can say it's a bad example b/c you can point to statistics that reasonably suggest the benefit is obtainable and in the case of universal healthcare coverage there aren't statistics to prove my case. However, I haven't seen too many examples of countries with nationalized healthcare that have poor qualities of life -- some of the best but that is my opinion -- and I am sure at some point they had to figure out away to fit the bill. We aren't the only country with an aging population.

[wildcat]

mkld -

I really am not trying to attack you. This is just a thread that covers a topic I am passionate about and one that I think we be THE next big thing in our country's immediate future. We will just agree to disagree and I commend your willingness to present your -- the unpopular one in this case -- view on healthcare.

[mykidslovedogs]

Wildcat -

I haven't had the impression that you're trying to attack me....debates are the spice of life! I too, am also very passionate about this subject, and simply feel there are better ways to solve the problem besides nationalizing and giving a blank healthcare check to all Americans. I like to think about the longterm consequences, because it will be my children and children's children who will have to deal with the changes we make now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat Again very hard to quantify b/c you don't know You can say it's a bad example b/c you can point to statistics that reasonably suggest the benefit is obtainable and in the case of universal healthcare coverage there aren't statistics to prove my case. However, I haven't seen too many examples of countries with nationalized healthcare that have poor qualities of life -- some of the best but that is my opinion -- and I am sure at some point they had to figure out away to fit the bill. We aren't the only country with an aging population.

Yup - they do find a way to pay for it - - just look at the income taxes as a percent of income around the world. How about Germany - often touted as having the best healthcare system. How about France?

Think your taxes are bad? - MSN Money

If you don't think 10%, 20% or 30% more than you currently pay is unrealistic down the road, think again...and yet, many of these countries STILL have enormous waiting lists for services despite the huge tax burdens...how can that be?

[maddythebeagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny Hmm...last time I looked at the breakdowns of health care costs, the actual cost of the health care wasnt the fast rising category. Overhead and bureaucracy were. So in summary: The doctors here think universal health care is a good idea. The prospective patients here think universal health care is a good idea. The insurance people dont like the idea and are maniacally throwing up clouds of misinformation to create FUD. Sounds about right.

and it only took 18 pages in this thread for you guys to hammer this out...next time, you will be graded on brevity...

[unclemick]

Personnally - speaking for myself only - I'd rather talk kayaks than actually buy one or even - heaven forbide get all sweaty propelling a real kayak thru real water.

A budding classic going here - pending further refinement of course.

heh heh heh - here's to mortgage/not morgage, when to take SS, and last but not least - 4% SWR. . Never again shall I endure a 12 year stretch(age 49 - 62) without health insurance. Like Arnie says (health insurance) -- I'll be back. . I still vote for dynamic simulation but then I'm left handed.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by megacorp-firee I think I can verify that it does.... but how would I prove it?

Probably takes some expensive medical procedure...

[Cb]

Well, from what I read it seems that the government has managed to pretty well match the inflows and outflows associated with Medicare for the forseeable future, so why not have them do the same with everyone's healthcare?

Cb

[Freein05]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cb Well, from what I read it seems that the government has managed to pretty well match the inflows and outflows associated with Medicare for the forseeable future, so why not have them do the same with everyone's healthcare? Cb

Medicare is taking the old and high risk because your local insurance company does not want them. Now if Medicare could also insure the young and healthy the graph would look much different.

There is another side to this. If the government would do away with Medicare a lot more of the baby boomer's would die and that would solve the SS problem. Food for thought!

[Cb]

[quote=Freein05;521251]Medicare is taking the old and high risk because your local insurance company does not want them. Now if Medicare could also insure the young and healthy the graph would look much different.
quote]

Yeah...politicians would never promise more in bennies than they'd raise in taxes, would they?

Cb

[teejayevans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha We just came back from the grocery store.

Clearly stupid pictures of your dog with food are her head don't belong
in this forum or any other in my opinion, since you are a moderator I
can't filter out your posts, how about acting like a moderator?
TJ

[samclem]

Yeah! No more fun in here, and I mean it!!

"Mom, Jimmy is touching me!"