Obama will NOT prey on people's fears

Stuff we should click on.  Be sure to state Not Work Safe, if applicable.  KTHX.
Post Reply
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 57668
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

Or somehow tie the current recession to healthcare "reform"
President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he realized Americans were skeptical about his healthcare overhaul, but that the country's economic recovery depended on the success of the $1 trillion plan.

Obama warned inaction would undermine the economy, worsen the deficit and cripple millions more ordinary Americans financially.


"I understand people are feeling uncertain about this. They are feeling anxious," he said in a prime-time televised debate, adding that he was confident people would support it when they looked "at the cost of doing nothing."

Obama cited the ballooning costs of spending on government health programs for the poor and elderly, Medicare and Medicaid. He said that without a healthcare revamp, those costs would explode the U.S. budget deficit.

The overall health of the economy, he said, also depended on stemming the rising costs of healthcare, which accounts for 17.6 percent of gross domestic product.

"That is why I've said that even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before. And health insurance reform is central to that effort."

I agree that we need to stem rising health care costs, but he's an idiot if he think his plan does that in any way.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

From what I hear, Congress is backing off on doing anything till after August.

I can't believe I'm actually applauding Congressional inaction.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 57668
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

He will also not play the race card.
President Obama's comments about the arrest of prominent Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates has added fuel to the story that has dominated national headlines and stirred discussion over whether race played a role.

At the end of Wednesday night's prime-time news conference that was meant to be chiefly about health care, the president said, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that [Gates case].

But Obama went on to add,"But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

He doesn't know the facts, but he'll make judgments.

Hey, sounds just like his healthcare "plans"
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Geez, you'd think someone would have pointed out his complete lack of executive experience prior to his winning the presidency, and the fact that it makes him completely unpredictable as to his competence as an executive.

You'd think someone would have pointed that out.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 57668
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

GORDON wrote:Geez, you'd think someone would have pointed out his complete lack of executive experience prior to his winning the presidency, and the fact that it makes him completely unpredictable as to his competence as an executive.

You'd think someone would have pointed that out.
Clearly that person failed us.
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

But at least we dodged a bullet with Palin, amirite?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 57668
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

Honestly, until recently I thought Obama had done a good job of steering towards the middle, doing basically benign or beneficial stuff.

Lately, he's just started turning left.

Yes, we desperately need to spend less on health care: No, he doesn't have a good solution.
It's not me, it's someone else.
thibodeaux
Posts: 8121
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm

Post by thibodeaux »

TheCatt wrote:Yes, we desperately need to spend less on health care: No, he doesn't have a good solution.
Who is "we," and why do you think this?
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

TheCatt wrote:Yes, we desperately need to spend less on health care: No, he doesn't have a good solution.

While part of the problem is due to inefficiencies and corruptions that can be rooted out, the real problem is that high-end medical care is just expensive. There are many patients for whom it can take loads of manpower of high-priced healthcare workers and lots of expensive equipment and doodads to keep them alive.

If we really want to move towards reducing costs, we have to consider reducing our expectations. The idea that everyone should have access to every proceedure even if they can't afford it is not realistic. And we need to acknowledge that if someone has decided that they no longer want treatment because they are ready to pass on, then perhaps continuing to spend thousands of dollars to keep them alive as long as possible against their will is not reasonable.

I wonder just how much would be saved just by the step of making it legal for someone to choose to die when they are ready to go.




Edited By TPRJones on 1248366455
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 57668
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

We = The United States.

I think the money could be used for much better purposes. We have an artificial allocation of dollars because people don't bear the true costs of their care. Therefore, they over-consume, and healthcare providers over-provide.

The WSJ had a good graph the other day show healthcare costs had risen from 7% to 19% of GDP over the past 30 years, while out of pocket costs for healthcare had declined from 33% of costs to 10%. Make the people vote with their wallets, and increase access (competition) in healthcare.
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

I honestly think the problem is two-fold:

1. The AMA's monopoly on medicine

2. How most of the country currently pays for insurance through their employers
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

TheCatt wrote:We = The United States.

I think the money could be used for much better purposes. We have an artificial allocation of dollars because people don't bear the true costs of their care. Therefore, they over-consume, and healthcare providers over-provide.

The WSJ had a good graph the other day show healthcare costs had risen from 7% to 19% of GDP over the past 30 years, while out of pocket costs for healthcare had declined from 33% of costs to 10%. Make the people vote with their wallets, and increase access (competition) in healthcare.
This is exactly what I meant by my point 2, above. So we agree.

Next you should take a look on how the AMA controls everything.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
thibodeaux
Posts: 8121
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm

Post by thibodeaux »

TheCatt wrote:We = The United States.

I think the money could be used for much better purposes. We have an artificial allocation of dollars because people don't bear the true costs of their care. Therefore, they over-consume, and healthcare providers over-provide.
Why is it any of your business what I spend my money on?

Answer: it's not.

Stop thinking like this, and start fighting the real problem: the push for government to make everybody warm and fuzzy. If everything is a "we the US" big problem, we're never going to do that.
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 57668
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

It's my business, because "you"'re spending my money in terms of health premiums, which are socialized.

No, it's is a "We the US" big problem, but I'm not aware of anything I said that comes remotely close to "government should make people warm and fuzzy." It's government regulations and treatment of things that has helped created this problem. Gordon and I said the exact same thing, and I don't think either of us is in favor of more government.
It's not me, it's someone else.
thibodeaux
Posts: 8121
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm

Post by thibodeaux »

I'm saying: you are fighting the wrong battle. We need to stop fighting the "we're spending too much money" battle and start fighting the "stop getting government to try to fix evertying" battle.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

I actually think we are on the same page. Neither of the two problems I listed would be fixed by nationalization, quite the contrary. Bigger government will, in fact, exacerbate things.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 57668
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

thibodeaux wrote:I'm saying: you are fighting the wrong battle. We need to stop fighting the "we're spending too much money" battle and start fighting the "stop getting government to try to fix evertying" battle.
I'm trying to co-opt his argument to show how there's a better solution that the ones Congress is coming up with. Just because there's problem A, doesn't mean it has to be solved the way they are approaching it.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

thibodeaux wrote:I'm saying: you are fighting the wrong battle. We need to stop fighting the "we're spending too much money" battle and start fighting the "stop getting government to try to fix evertying" battle.
One miracle at at time.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 57668
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

One of our rabbits is sick. Very sick, might die.

At any rate, we've been to the vet twice to get her checked out, and get prescriptions. We've had 2 vet visits, 7 prescriptions, 1 special food, and I just picked up 2 valium injections to give to her. The total cost is about $300, including $25 to overnight a medicine from AZ.

Now imagine the same for humans. The first vet visit was an extended one, and the second was a normal follow-up. From memory, my doctor charges $150 and $115 for those. For the prescriptions, let's assume 6 generic, at $10 each, plus the special one that was $25 before shipping. Special food we'll price the same at $13.50. Now, do you think any doctor would give you a valium injection to administer to yourself or someone else? I'm guessing no. So that would be two more doctor visits at the "quickie" rate of $115. That gets us to $580 for pretty much the same care. Sure, insurance companies probably pay less, but that's made up for by the overhead of the insurance companies themselves, and all the reimbursement time, paperwork, etc.

Veterinary world - very little health insurance.
people world - too much insurance.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Mommy Dearest
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 12:59 pm

Post by Mommy Dearest »

TheCatt wrote:One of our rabbits is sick. Very sick, might die.

At any rate, we've been to the vet twice to get her checked out, and get prescriptions. We've had 2 vet visits, 7 prescriptions, 1 special food, and I just picked up 2 valium injections to give to her. The total cost is about $300, including $25 to overnight a medicine from AZ.

Now imagine the same for humans. The first vet visit was an extended one, and the second was a normal follow-up. From memory, my doctor charges $150 and $115 for those. For the prescriptions, let's assume 6 generic, at $10 each, plus the special one that was $25 before shipping. Special food we'll price the same at $13.50. Now, do you think any doctor would give you a valium injection to administer to yourself or someone else? I'm guessing no. So that would be two more doctor visits at the "quickie" rate of $115. That gets us to $580 for pretty much the same care. Sure, insurance companies probably pay less, but that's made up for by the overhead of the insurance companies themselves, and all the reimbursement time, paperwork, etc.

Veterinary world - very little health insurance.
people world - too much insurance.
Ironically I receive emails from akc almost every day to purchase medical insurance for my akc registered dog. They are trying, and I think accomplishing to some point, to get into that new avenue. I have great respect for vets. They have to learn many species, insead of the one the human docs learn, and the same cost for med school if not more. They make lots less but get into the field for the love of animals. I hate to see the insurance companies trying to get their foot into this door also. I will pay as I go in both worlds, thank you very much
Post Reply