Why is 'everyone' on this board so against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S?

Originally posted by Animal

That is a fair argument. But what is the alternate proposal you would make? Less Federal and more State government? How would that change anything? I think that the proposal to take away the ability to big money to use their cash to influence the political process would be the creation of more oversight.

I agree, IMO lobbyists need to be eliminated or highly taxed and regulated.

Breaking the government up, or 'drowning it in a bath tub' only makes less people in power and less people for the corporations to buy.

I never said break up the government, not following you here

The issue of control is, IMHO over stated. While I do see the USA as a much less free country that it touts, I do not think of it as totalitarian. Still improvement can and should be made.

For example, the ability to legislate a bill to the American people, while freeing themselves from its limitations. Or how about voting themselves new Gulf Streams to travel in months after critizing the automaker CEOs for doing the same... thats too much control.

True, but I dont see the health care plan as giving away any more control than already exists under the rule of the corporate elite. In fact I see it as an improvement. Dont let your mistrust of the government, regardless of its merit, cloud your perspective on the issue. Compare what is being proposed to what exists.

That argument would hold alot more water if we had one successful model to follow, but even more so, it is the number of failed attempts that has forged my mistrust in the government health care plans.

and we see how transparent Obama is, he is too elite to share this health care with us, no wonder he won't take the time to read it, or even reveal his BC.

What?

More reasons I do not believe I am letting my mistrust of the government cloud my perspective on the issue.

Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Animal
That argument would hold alot more water if we had one successful model to follow, but even more so, it is the number of failed attempts that has forged my mistrust in the government health care plans.

Please expand on this. Show me some valid examples and details that highlight what you are talking about and I may actually listen.

reply to post by Animal


Medicare, medicaid, soical security are all going broke.

Google "state health care budget" and the headlines are filled with cuts, slash, crisis which are all just metaphors for raising taxes and cutting programs. What I have described is not hard to verify.

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by Animal

 

Medicare, medicaid, soical security are all going broke.

Google "state health care budget" and the headlines are filled with cuts, slash, crisis which are all just metaphors for raising taxes and cutting programs. What I have described is not hard to verify.

Try actually SHOWING some evidence...

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by Animal

 

Medicare, medicaid, soical security are all going broke.

Google "state health care budget" and the headlines are filled with cuts, slash, crisis which are all just metaphors for raising taxes and cutting programs. What I have described is not hard to verify.

Try actually SHOWING some evidence...

I'll give you the benefit of doubt, although I think you are intentionally being obtuse...

www.heritage.org...

Medicare, Medicaid, Soical Security

In the coming decades, the cost of these programs will leap from 8.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 18.6 percent of GDP—an increase of 10.2 percent of GDP. Without reform, this increased cost would require raising taxes by the current equiva­lent of $12,072 per household or eliminating every other government program. Funding all of the prom­ised benefits with income taxes would require rais­ing the 35 percent income tax bracket to at least 77 percent and raising the 25 percent tax bracket to at least 55 percent.

www.google.com...

HARTFORD, Conn. — Aurice Barlow knows what happens when someone can't afford dental care.

"I see people walking the streets with toothaches, teeth hanging out of their mouths," said the former nurse's aide. At least 30 percent of the people in this city of 124,500 are impoverished.

"Nobody cares," she says.

Barlow is worried she'll now become one of them.

Washington is pouring $87 billion in federal stimulus money into the states to help maintain state-run Medicaid health care for the needy — and to handle the expected surge in enrollment.

But Connecticut and other cash-strapped states say they still must slash spending on health care to cover massive budget deficits. At least 21 states have already restricted low-income children's and families' eligibility for health insurance or their access to services; at least 22 states and the District of Columbia are cutting services for low-income elderly or disabled patients.

Those considering Medicaid cuts are targeting benefits considered optional under federal rules — such as adults' dental coverage, vision care and some therapy — as well as cuts or freezes in Medicaid reimbursement. Some states are also looking to cut non-Medicaid or state-funded programs.

In Connecticut, where a budget agreement has not yet been reached, Gov. M. Jodi Rell wants to limit Medicaid dental benefits for adults to emergencies only, saving nearly $51 million over two years.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal plans to shut down a mental health hospital in New Orleans by Sept. 1, consolidating its services with a suburban facility 35 miles away. Residents have filed a lawsuit to stop the closure.

_ Illinois plans to cut $40 million from a prescription drug program for about 200,000 low-income seniors and people with disabilities. About 150,000 of them will have to pay more out-of-pocket.

_ The Ohio Legislature sharply cut drug and alcohol addiction services and community-based mental health care.

_ Maryland's Medicaid cuts include rates paid to nursing homes, spending on hospital stays and an inflation adjustment for community health care providers.

_ Washington state cut about $255 million, more than 40 percent, from a state program that offers low-cost subsidized health insurance for the poor.

"While some things have been avoided, delayed, to meet these significant budget shortfalls, states are considering some pretty major cutbacks to the program," said Robin Rudowitz, a principal policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Many of the programs facing cutbacks or elimination were hard-won by advocates over the years.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by mhc_70]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by mhc_70]

Get the lobbyists out? Hahah... Too late!

Drugmakers ready $150 million for Obama plan
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Additionally, the industry is the major contributor to Healthy Economy Now, which recently completed a $12 million round of advertising nationally and in several states. The ads were made by firms with close ties to Democrats and the White House and generally reflected the administration's changing rhetoric on health care.

Any health care bill that makes it to Obama's desk is expected to extend health insurance to the nearly 50 million who now lack it. That would mean a huge new pool of potential customers for drug companies and other health care providers. That, in turn, has created an incentive to offer concessions to the White House and lawmakers in hopes of shaping the bill, rather than simply opposing it.

Drugmakers have also funneled more money to Democrats in recent years, a trend that began soon after they gained control of Congress.

Hahaha... Government and corporate health care will buy, own, and sell everyone's but for money. We are only $$$$ signs to these people. Don't fool yourselves.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Why is 'everyone' on this board so against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S?.

I'm not against it. I'd be perfectly fine with a Canadian or similar public system. People call what we have now a "system", but it's not a system at all. It's a bunch of insurance and pharmaceutical companies raping us. It's a cluster-f__k really if you think about it.

I work in the technology field, and it would be great to break on my own again, and work independantly. Myself and many of my friends wind-up working for employers mostly just for the "benefits". Otherwise, we'd be out consulting! You just can't take the risks right now of not being covered, and getting direct coverage yourself is even more expensive.

And don't even get me started on the "pre-existing conditions" and "lapse of coverage" bull-sheot.

Anyway, imh(f)o. Peace.

Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Animal
Try actually SHOWING some evidence...

I'll give you the benefit of doubt, although I think you are intentionally being obtuse...

www.heritage.org...

Medicare, Medicaid, Soical Security

In the coming decades, the cost of these programs will leap from 8.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 18.6 percent of GDP—an increase of 10.2 percent of GDP. Without reform, this increased cost would require raising taxes by the current equiva­lent of $12,072 per household or eliminating every other government program. Funding all of the prom­ised benefits with income taxes would require rais­ing the 35 percent income tax bracket to at least 77 percent and raising the 25 percent tax bracket to at least 55 percent.

www.google.com...

Are you serious? This is laughable. I am sure without a doubt that there will be MASSIVE increases in the cost of health care by the time 2050 rolls around. That you would use estimations that prove the fact that over the next 41 years costs will increase by 10% is just plain SILLY. Do you think health care from private insurance is not going to show the same trend?

Here is a little fact for ya mate:

Here is a raw fact, from the National Health Expenditure Data since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% — but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.

link

What does this tell us?

First, that your posted information, regardless of its relevance as fact, is irrelevant. We have seen an increase from the 1970's to early 2000's of about 8.8% making the 10% your source is sighting as actually AN IMPROVEMENT.

Second, that the comparison between increases in Medicare and Private insurance shows Medicare. rates increase MORE SLOWLY or LESS than medicare. The information shows that private insurance would be 1/3 less in cost than it is now (on average) if its cost inflation were equal to that of medicare.

What this means is your stuck in a vacuum of information that is only presented to scare you away from a public option because those making all the cash, THE CORPORATIONS want to continue to make money off our fear of dying from a curable disease.

HARTFORD, Conn. — Aurice Barlow knows what happens when someone can't afford dental care.

"I see people walking the streets with toothaches, teeth hanging out of their mouths," said the former nurse's aide. At least 30 percent of the people in this city of 124,500 are impoverished.

"Nobody cares," she says.

Barlow is worried she'll now become one of them.

Washington is pouring $87 billion in federal stimulus money into the states to help maintain state-run Medicaid health care for the needy — and to handle the expected surge in enrollment.

But Connecticut and other cash-strapped states say they still must slash spending on health care to cover massive budget deficits. At least 21 states have already restricted low-income children's and families' eligibility for health insurance or their access to services; at least 22 states and the District of Columbia are cutting services for low-income elderly or disabled patients.

Those considering Medicaid cuts are targeting benefits considered optional under federal rules — such as adults' dental coverage, vision care and some therapy — as well as cuts or freezes in Medicaid reimbursement. Some states are also looking to cut non-Medicaid or state-funded programs.

In Connecticut, where a budget agreement has not yet been reached, Gov. M. Jodi Rell wants to limit Medicaid dental benefits for adults to emergencies only, saving nearly $51 million over two years.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal plans to shut down a mental health hospital in New Orleans by Sept. 1, consolidating its services with a suburban facility 35 miles away. Residents have filed a lawsuit to stop the closure.

_ Illinois plans to cut $40 million from a prescription drug program for about 200,000 low-income seniors and people with disabilities. About 150,000 of them will have to pay more out-of-pocket.

_ The Ohio Legislature sharply cut drug and alcohol addiction services and community-based mental health care.

_ Maryland's Medicaid cuts include rates paid to nursing homes, spending on hospital stays and an inflation adjustment for community health care providers.

_ Washington state cut about $255 million, more than 40 percent, from a state program that offers low-cost subsidized health insurance for the poor.

"While some things have been avoided, delayed, to meet these significant budget shortfalls, states are considering some pretty major cutbacks to the program," said Robin Rudowitz, a principal policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Many of the programs facing cutbacks or elimination were hard-won by advocates over the years.

So what are you trying to show here? That the states are going broke? We all already knwo that mate.

This really has very little to do with proving your point in regards to the argument against a FEDERAL PUBLIC OPTION program.

If anything this shows us the importance of putting in a federal system as the need is obviously growing.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by Animal
So what are you trying to show here? That the states are going broke? We all already knwo that mate.

This really has very little to do with proving your point in regards to the argument against a FEDERAL PUBLIC OPTION program.

You asked for evidence the programs were going broke, I provided it and you replied that you already knew that. That verifies my suspicion that your only intention is to be obtuse.

reply to post by mhc_70


funny because i actually showed you that FEDERAL programs actually are doing better in terms of costs than private programs.

while state's are slashing every program they can without a doubt this reality only BOLSTERS the need for a new system.

private insurance program pricing rapidly outpaces the cost of federal programs.

states are n longer able to provide basic coverage due to the new financial hardship facing the country.

therefore a NEW system needs to be developed.

you are going to need to show us WHY private insurance is better for us than an alternative public option.

So far you have not.

This is not an attack on you, but rather an attack on the notion that the public option is somehow WORSE for us than private insurance. A notion for which there is just no good evidence to back up.

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by mhc_70

 

funny because i actually showed you that FEDERAL programs actually are doing better in terms of costs than private programs.

I thought the we agreed the federal programs were going broke and the problem with private health insurance is they are getting too rich?

Do you even keep up with what you post?

while state's are slashing every program they can without a doubt this reality only BOLSTERS the need for a new system.

Your circular logic has taken the debate full circle. New systems have been tried by government time and time again, but the end result has always been the same, cutbacks in health care and increase in taxes because they all seem to be going broke.

private insurance program pricing rapidly outpaces the cost of federal programs.

The government has no choice but to cut costs, otherwise they would run out of funding.

The increase in private healthcare is largely due to patients choosing to have very expensive procedures using expensive technology that wasn't available 20 or 30 years ago. This is essential to improving quality.

states are n longer able to provide basic coverage due to the new financial hardship facing the country.

therefore a NEW system needs to be developed.

you are going to need to show us WHY private insurance is better for us than an alternative public option.

So far you have not.

This is not an attack on you, but rather an attack on the notion that the public option is somehow WORSE for us than private insurance. A notion for which there is just no good evidence to back up.

The majority of Americans see the public option as worse, especially if it takes away the right to choose a private health care provider. If thats what I feel like will best suite my health care needs why shouldn't I have an alternative to the public plan? The public option is already there, but it does need some reform as well as private health insurance reform.