| 1
members are viewing this topic |
| >Guest |
| |
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 23 2009,2:19 pm |
|
   |
With the health care bill coming up, and multiple choices being floated and withdrawn--here's a chance to weigh in.
From Investors Business Daily
Public Option To Cut Health Costs? Medicare's Record Says Dream On
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Posted 06/19/2009 05:39 PM ET
'First, the rising cost of health care must be brought down." That's what President Obama recently declared when outlining the basic principles of his health care plan.
His supporters have echoed his emphasis. The New York Times writes that, when it comes to health policy, "The president's main focus is on starting to reduce the soaring cost of health care."
Speaker Pelosi concurs: Health care reform "is about cost — taking down the cost of health care."
But can the president's plan succeed, even on his own terms? If history is any guide, it cannot — and will instead make matters much worse.
The centerpiece of President Obama's plan is a "public option," described by Tom Daschle as "a government-run insurance program, modeled after Medicare." The president asserts that this new Medicare-like program would cut costs.
But there are nearly 40 years of experience to consult, and they offer a resounding rebuttal. Across the years, Medicare's costs have risen far more than the costs of privately purchased care.
A new study I've completed, published by the Pacific Research Institute, takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.
The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.
Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.
These conclusions are true despite very generous treatment of Medicare. My study counts Medicare's prescription drug expenditures as part of privately purchased care, rather than as part of Medicare. It counts health care purchased privately by Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries (including Medicare copayments and Medigap insurance) among the costs of private care, without counting its recipients among those receiving private care — thereby magnifying private care's per-person costs. And it doesn't adjust for cost-shifting from Medicare to private entities.
The New York Times and others have quoted studies claiming that private insurance has failed to contain costs as well as Medicare. Such studies are deeply misleading, for they omit any consideration of out-of-pocket spending, thereby neglecting a major shift in the private health care market.
Attached Image
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 23 2009,7:13 pm |
|
 |
I received this email a couple of days ago. Thanks Jim for reminding my by starting this thread.
QUOTE From the Desk of: David Martin, Executive Vice President MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER 6/22/2009 MADDOG, President Obama is trying to put our nation on the fast track to socialized health care, and on June 24, the ABC network will help him sell this bill of goods to the American people. Next Wednesday, ABC News will transform the White House into their newsroom for what has been described as an unabashed infomercial promoting the Democrat agenda?more specifically, government-run health care. ABC News Emphatically Rejects Opposing ViewsABC News has abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity in its bid to be the administration's official salesman for ObamaCare. ABC flatly rejected Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay's request to add opposition views to ensure all sides of the health care debate were represented in the town hall forum. Not only that, ABC News Vice President Kerry Smith responded by saying, ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the President.As if that wasn't enough, ABC then rejected an ad from a conservative group trying to counter the liberal health care agenda. They clearly are not interested in a balanced presentation on this subject. Void of opposing views, this news special becomes nothing more than an extended infomercial designed to scare and manipulate the American people into supporting a trillion-dollar government takeover of the highest quality health care system in the world!Hold ABC News AccountableMADDOG, health care is an issue of life and death. If you don't want politicians and faceless bureaucrats making your personal health care decisions, which medical procedures you need, which treatments are affordable, which medications you can have, then stand with us and demand the media present a balanced view on how to reform health care. That's why we are asking MRC Action team members to do two things TODAY. First, take a moment right now to call ABC News executives and demand balance in the health care debate. Ask them why they won't allow the conservative point of view on this show. Second, click here to submit questions to be asked at this town hall on Wednesday, questions the liberal media aren't asking. Questions like: · How much will your plan cost? · How will it be paid for? · Can you name one example of the government taking over an industry and the costs falling as a result? Click here to hear MRC founder Brent Bozell's exclusive message to the MRC Action team explaining why we all need to act NOW to stop what he calls one of the worst examples I've seen in all my years of observing media bias. Here is your contact information: David Westin President, ABC News (212) 456-6200 Anne Sweeney President, ABC-Disney Television Group (818) 569-7700 anne.sweeney@disney.com
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 23 2009,8:46 pm |
|
|
I'll bet ABC sees the error of their ways after the kooky conservatives start calling the ABC switchboard.
You guys are a riot.  
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 24 2009,8:58 am |
|
|
You contradict yourself by blasting Fox News for their slant yet you condone ABC. 
As the great orator Ralph Malph once said, "Good one, Potsey." 
Attached Image
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Paul Harvey
Group: Members
Posts: 2778
Joined: Aug. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 24 2009,9:31 am |
|
|
^What a baby!
STFU!
Yer worse than a woman for crying out loud!
--------------
~I love trolling n00bs and pwning assholes~
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 24 2009,9:48 am |
|
|
Anyone have a better solution on the conservative side? Or just the same old "leaving the fox in charge of the hen-house" stuff that we've seen bankrupting countless Americans?
If you leave things on their current path, only the very rich, and the very poor will have decent health care. The HMO's and hospitals aren't doing us any favors with the current costs, so I think someone needs to step in.
I have a relative who has health coverage that most would consider pretty good. He normally tries to wait until he takes a trip out of the country to see a doctor on vacation. Even with his health coverage the co-pays are too expensive here. He'll go to a doctor in a poor country, and pay full price instead. The funny part is, the doctor there often has the same training. Meaning, he/she was educated at an American university, and medical school.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
ICU812
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3244
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 24 2009,10:07 am |
|
|
I'll ask this question, What should healthcare cost.
Right now I pay $570.00 per month for my daughter and I. My wife has hers thru her employer with a dediction of $40 or so per pay period, every two weeks.
If I dropped our insurance and went on hers she would have 1200 or so per month deducted.
It sucks to send a check to BCBS every month but what is the alternative?
What should it cost?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Botto 82
Group: Members
Posts: 6293
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 24 2009,11:07 am |
|
|
As long as Big Healthcare is showing good dividends, it's all good.
Stop your whining about healthcare costs.
The system is doing fine.
--------------
Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 24 2009,12:20 pm |
|
|
PH QUOTE Yer worse than a woman for crying out loud! Careful, Liberal will be "really outraged" by that statement.
Irisheyes QUOTE Anyone have a better solution on the conservative side? Or just the same old "leaving the fox in charge of the hen-house" stuff that we've seen bankrupting countless Americans?
That's why the option of private AND government options are included. There are two ways to accomplish this:
Government insurance for anybody that can't get private insurance--pre-existing conditions, for example.
Government CATASTROPHIC insurance to cover major medical. This may be paired with private insurance. If there was a limit on what private insurance would have to pay, the costs will come down.
Obamacare bit the big one when GAO revealed its true cost--over $1.6 TRILLION dollars. The country can't afford that. Conservatives have been touting that figure since it was proposed, and GAO agrees with it. Obambi, in his naivete, keeps talking about "driving down the cost of health care" without specific proposals. That worked during the election, when all he had to do was mouth "hope" and "change" without specific proposals--but you can't actually GOVERN that way.
The problem with socialized medicine is the same as that expressed by Will Rogers in the 1920s--there are no savings by making the OTHER guy pay--"We screw the OTHER guy, and pass the savings on to you!"
The answer was stated by Britain's PM--Margaret Thatcher--"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of OTHER people's money."
The big problem in Obamacare is that there is NO savings in having the government run the system--"government efficiency" is the biggest laugh line out there. In order to cut health care costs, you have to do something with the outrageous awards handed out by juries. Government could cut the cost of healthcare dramatically, WITHOUT all the beaurocracy, by simply limiting the awards doctors (AND health care facilties, AND pharmaceuticals, AND insurance companies) have to pay out. Without reining in the attornies, there will BE no health care savings--no matter WHO runs it.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
