Question for Government Run Healthcare Supporters...

[sealybobo]

Once again, like Obama you fail to answer the question.... go figure.

You too:

If you knew there was a car out there that worked better than your car and cost $6K less, would you buy it?

They are ripping us off and you know it.

I am going to request a on tv town hall style meeting between the insurance defenders and the single payer/public option people and see who wins with facts and who gets exposed.

It is clear Obama answered all of your questions last night. What else you got? Do you have any problems with what Obama said? Deny any of his facts? Oh yea, the number of people uninsured. Lets waste time debating what that number is.

I have no idea what you are talking about but I will answer your question even though you won't anser mine... Cost is not the only thing I consider when buying a car... Depends on the options.

Care to answer my question now????

You have no idea the analogy I'm trying to make? Stupid.

And you got the answer wrong. The answer is that HELL YEA you will buy another brand if it costs $6K less and does everything and MORE than your car does. Better gas milage, looks better, better f&B's, etc.

In other words, there is a better option than the healthcare you are getting now. Its called the public plan.

Funny you like foreign competition to come in and compete with our car companies but you don't want the government to compete with these insurance companies. Are you scared?

 

[sealybobo]

How many of you take your extra money in your check each week and give that to people who don't have health insurance?

I do! You do too! Tax payers are already paying. In fact, if you add up all the money we spend on things like poor people who get cancer and can't afford the treatments, we are already paying 2/3rds of what this would cost.

The rich will pick up the rest.

So, the answer is we all do.

Oh, you're asking about the money left over after I pay my taxes? I keep all that myself.

God I hope I got his question right!

 

[Zoom-boing]

You too:

If you knew there was a car out there that worked better than your car and cost $6K less, would you buy it?

They are ripping us off and you know it.

I am going to request a on tv town hall style meeting between the insurance defenders and the single payer/public option people and see who wins with facts and who gets exposed.

It is clear Obama answered all of your questions last night. What else you got? Do you have any problems with what Obama said? Deny any of his facts? Oh yea, the number of people uninsured. Lets waste time debating what that number is.

I have no idea what you are talking about but I will answer your question even though you won't anser mine... Cost is not the only thing I consider when buying a car... Depends on the options.

Care to answer my question now????

You have no idea the analogy I'm trying to make? Stupid.

And you got the answer wrong. The answer is that HELL YEA you will buy another brand if it costs $6K less and does everything and MORE than your car does. Better gas milage, looks better, better f&B's, etc.

In other words, there is a better option than the healthcare you are getting now. Its called the public plan.

Funny you like foreign competition to come in and compete with our car companies but you don't want the government to compete with these insurance companies. Are you scared?

Tell me, will the government run it's health care company like Amtrak, Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Amazing that all of the sudden the mood from the right is much different today than it was yesterday. Yesterday you guys were all over the place and wondering where us liberals were.

Then Obama squashed all your lies and bs and today you guys seemed to have lost your message.

That's the key. Control the conversation. We have control back.

Now, you can continue to question Obama after 6 months on the job. Go for it. You all sound like idiots.

Youmust not be reading the same posts I am... Obama is getting killed in here.... but that's tytpical lefty debate...

Sorry- the quotes are backwards.

I call him Nixon, and his quote begins with "Amazing..."

You can always tell, Nixon's posts make no sense.

 

[sealybobo]

Amazing that all of the sudden the mood from the right is much different today than it was yesterday. Yesterday you guys were all over the place and wondering where us liberals were.

Then Obama squashed all your lies and bs and today you guys seemed to have lost your message.

That's the key. Control the conversation. We have control back.

Now, you can continue to question Obama after 6 months on the job. Go for it. You all sound like idiots.

Youmust not be reading the same posts I am... Obama is getting killed in here.... but that's tytpical lefty debate...

He is? Killed with kindness. Or killed with misinformation.

The GOP machine was working overtime this week, no question about it. Maybe that was because they knew Obama was going to be addressing the public or something, but it sure seemed to stop today.

Yesterday some righty asked, "where are all the lefties" when you guys were making shit up yesterday, and now that Obama has debunked most of the lies you guys were telling yesterday, it seems the tone of your message has changed.

You have switched to knew lies and new tactics. Perfect example is this thread. What a question. What a right wing question to ask. I didn't catch the message behind your loaded question. Why don't you man up and just say what you want to say, cheap ass greedy bitch.

 

[sealybobo]

Youmust not be reading the same posts I am... Obama is getting killed in here.... but that's tytpical lefty debate...

Sorry- the quotes are backwards.

I call him Nixon, and his quote begins with "Amazing..."

You can always tell, Nixon's posts make no sense.

Seeing you in a bikini would be amazing



LY FUNNY.

 

[sealybobo]

I have no idea what you are talking about but I will answer your question even though you won't anser mine... Cost is not the only thing I consider when buying a car... Depends on the options.

Care to answer my question now????

You have no idea the analogy I'm trying to make? Stupid.

And you got the answer wrong. The answer is that HELL YEA you will buy another brand if it costs $6K less and does everything and MORE than your car does. Better gas milage, looks better, better f&B's, etc.

In other words, there is a better option than the healthcare you are getting now. Its called the public plan.

Funny you like foreign competition to come in and compete with our car companies but you don't want the government to compete with these insurance companies. Are you scared?

Tell me, will the government run it's health care company like Amtrak, Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid?

Social security and medicare are great programs. 85% like it. Its not the programs that suck, its the politicians that rape the kitty.

Healthcare should not be run by for profits. The only for profits should be the doctors.

And why doesn't a private company buy amtrack and run it better?

There are a lot of things that government is great at running. I saw some government employees doing something the other day and they were doing it much cheaper than any private company would do it for.

 

[sealybobo]

Lets have for profits run the community mental health so we give them the tax dollars to help mentally sick people and they don't help anyone because then that would cut into their profits!!!

 

[Zoom-boing]

You have no idea the analogy I'm trying to make? Stupid.

And you got the answer wrong. The answer is that HELL YEA you will buy another brand if it costs $6K less and does everything and MORE than your car does. Better gas milage, looks better, better f&B's, etc.

In other words, there is a better option than the healthcare you are getting now. Its called the public plan.

Funny you like foreign competition to come in and compete with our car companies but you don't want the government to compete with these insurance companies. Are you scared?

Tell me, will the government run it's health care company like Amtrak, Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid?

Social security and medicare are great programs. 85% like it. Its not the programs that suck, its the politicians that rape the kitty.

Healthcare should not be run by for profits. The only for profits should be the doctors.

And why doesn't a private company buy amtrack and run it better?

There are a lot of things that government is great at running. I saw some government employees doing something the other day and they were doing it much cheaper than any private company would do it for.

What makes you think they won't do the same with any health care plan they come up with?

Is Amtrak for sale?

 

[sealybobo]

Amazing that all of the sudden the mood from the right is much different today than it was yesterday. Yesterday you guys were all over the place and wondering where us liberals were.

Then Obama squashed all your lies and bs and today you guys seemed to have lost your message.

That's the key. Control the conversation. We have control back.

Now, you can continue to question Obama after 6 months on the job. Go for it. You all sound like idiots.

Youmust not be reading the same posts I am... Obama is getting killed in here.... but that's tytpical lefty debate...

Great example. Do a New Post search and Healthcare isn't even like number 10 on the most recent posts.

And the one guy was asking yesterday where we were. Now after Obama's great factual speech, where is he? GONE baby GONE!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Tell me, will the government run it's health care company like Amtrak, Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid?

Social security and medicare are great programs. 85% like it. Its not the programs that suck, its the politicians that rape the kitty.

Healthcare should not be run by for profits. The only for profits should be the doctors.

And why doesn't a private company buy amtrack and run it better?

There are a lot of things that government is great at running. I saw some government employees doing something the other day and they were doing it much cheaper than any private company would do it for.

What makes you think they won't do the same with any health care plan they come up with?

They might. But as of right now, we'll pay less, everyone will be covered, the doctors want it, the government will pay the doctors and they will cost less to do it than the for profits are costing us.

What makes you trust the for profits who have raised their prices 191% since 2001? We know they gouged us. You gotta stop thinking government is the enemy. I understand what you are saying about them tapping the money we put in, but they can't. That money goes to the doctors.

And hey, you guys want to fuck over the auto workers because they cost us too much and now you want to protect insurance companies who I will agree cost us way too much?

Why?

 

[Bfgrn]

How about HALF your income, if the status quo is kept in place...

The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.
The Cost of Doing Nothing
Why the Cost of Failing to Fix Our Health System Is Greater than the Cost of Reform


BTW, you had your head handed to you HERE and you never responded PC...

It's a good thing you didn't read any further PC; you weren't looking for TRUTH, you were looking for something that would support your dogma...

You picked the wrong article, organization and study...LOL!

The Quality Question

No doubt one of the reasons that quality doesn’t make it into the health care discussions as readily as coverage or cost is because of this very satisfaction: if people are happy, then there’s no problem—so why pick a fight where there need not be conflict? Health care reform is already hard enough.

But quality is a problem. Just because Americans are happy with their care, doesn’t mean that they are getting the best care—or even recommended levels of care, as determined through medical consensus.

In 2003, Elizabeth McGlynn, the associate director of RAND’s health care program, led the first national, comprehensive study on the quality of care for adults. (Read that sentence again: we didn’t have a major nation-wide study on quality until just five years ago. The Institute of Medicine did focus on medical errors in its 1999 report, “To Err is Human"; but the RAND study looked at whether doctors were following “best practice.”) Quality has clearly been an overlooked issue in health care assessments.

Maggie has touched on McGlynn's study in a previous post, but it’s worth discussing again here. Using telephone interviews and two-year medical records, McGlynn’s team assessed whether or not 13,275 participants in 12 metropolitan regions received the level of care that doctors recommend for their specific ailments (25 conditions in all, including congestive heart failure, hypertension, breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, coronary artery disease, STDs, headaches, and alcohol dependence). What they found was that, on average, patients receive just 55 percent of recommended care for their conditions. (“Recommended care” was determined by (1) poring over national guidelines and medical literature to come up with key indicators and (2) subjecting these indicators to four nine-person, multi-specialty panels, who nixed or okayed the metrics).

This proportion was remarkably consistent across different kinds of care. The authors found “little difference among the proportion of recommended preventive care provided (54.9 percent), the proportion of recommended acute care provided (53.5 percent), and the proportion of recommended care provided for chronic conditions (56.1 percent).”

In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee last month, McGlynn nicely summed up the implications of these numbers: “we spend nearly $2 trillion annually on health care and we get it right about half the time.”

The Rand Study in which you take so much joy is at best peripheral to the discussion, as you should have realized, as there no indication that the Obama plan would correct these problems in any way.
a)Medical knowledge is evolving so quickly that helping doctors keep up by delivering information on best practices would be beneficial. But telling doctors what to do for the sake of cost control in dangerous. The RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan research organization, found that often physicians did not give patients the optimal treatment for their condition. But over-treating patients was seldom the problem (only 11% of the time.) Failing to give patients a needed treatment was four times as big a problem (46% of the time.) That's why prompting doctors to do the right think will help patients but not curb spending.
Downgrading Health Care

b) Still, it remains to be seen whether certain drugs or procedures wouldn’t be denied to customers under a public plan as well. In fact, the criticism from conservatives has been that a public plan would be stingy in what it would cover in an effort to control costs. We can’t predict the future, but we find it unlikely that at least some denials wouldn’t take place no matter who is issuing insurance.
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan


The idea that healthcare costs are 'skyrocketing' is as bogus as most of your posts are.
1) The following is the annual growth of healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%

Skyrocketing? Compared to what? In 1970, it was 10.5% and in 1980 it was 13%.
Downgrading Health Care

Too bad your comprehension didn't skyrocket.

Now for a lesson in economics. Gratis.
Rather than viewing only the healthcare costs alone, consider the largest 'package' of strain on spendable income: together- housing & food & fuel & healthcare:

Taken together, the package takes up the same 53-55% as it has since 1960 That's over two and a half generations.


"By Betsy McCaughey Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., is a patient advocate, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, and a former Lt. Governor of New York State.
Downgrading Health Care
The administration has warned that soaring health spending threatens the stability of American families and the economy. These doomsday scenarios are untrue. Health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased 10.5 percent in 1970, 13 percent in 1980, and consistently less than 7 percent in each of the last five years, reaching a low of 6.1 percent a year ago. Each year since 1960, food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' expenditures, while housing has taken up a steady share. This has enabled Americans to spend an increasing share of their budgets on another necessity, healthcare. These four necessities together consume the same share of American spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, Americans are increasing the share of their spending that goes to recreation. Moderate income families can be helped to buy health coverage with vouchers, refundable tax credits, or debit cards. That's a low risk, "fix what's broken" approach."

Let's see what else you are wrong about.
"The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016."
And you would be basing your assumption on what study of "accuracy in government estimates..."

You must love phrases like "...Under this scenario, we estimate ..."

And, more: " ...you had your head handed to you ...'
Only in your addled brain.

No better proof of liberal what-passed-for-thinking then the view that you folks always know better than the people that you are 'concerned' about.

No matter how many studies show that not only do the vast majority (80-85%) say they are pleased with their healthcare, and the view is over 90% when those who have recently had a serious illness are polled, you need to show that they really don't know what is good for them.

“…while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own health care than with the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receive…a mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive.”.(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Defend Your Health Care


The need to be smarter than the rest of the proletariat is a liberal inferiority complex, but I realize that you guys are actually inferior.

So let's review.
Healthcare has not skyrocketed.
Folks by and large are happy with the current healthcare.
My head remains majestically in place.
Democrat talking points lead your around as though you have a ring through your nose.

Suggestions:
1. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite.
2. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps.
3. Drop the nonsense about declining care for pre-existing conditions, or else folks on their deathbed would take out life insurance.
4. Admit that the Obama care program is predicated on getting seniors to die.
5. Provide free lie-detector tests for Democrat politicians.

WOW PC...do you FEEL if you throw a whole bunch of bullshit against a wall it will stick or overwhelm the TRUTH? Sorry; the TRUTH: health care costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate...it has risen over 70% in the last 8 years...

AND, the overwhelming majority want health care reform AND a government option.

Most in US support govt-backed health care: poll

(AFP) – Jun 20, 2009

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The overwhelming majority of Americans support substantial changes to the country's health care system, including a government-run health insurance option, a new opinion poll found.

The survey by The New York Times and CBS News also indicated most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance.

Eighty-five percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, according to the poll.

In addition, the survey found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan -- something like Medicare for those under 65 -- that would compete for customers with private insurers.

Twenty percent said they were opposed.

"That's why prompting doctors to do the right think will help patients but not curb spending." ... Are you SERIOUS PC? Can you possibly THINK about the cascading costs of doing the WRONG thing???


Study finds rapid growth in health costs hurts economic performance of US industries
Ironic, in the REAL world it is business that's suffering along with citizens, but don't let your far right wing dogma and hatred for American families sway you diatribe...In 2005, the company I was a rep for held special meetings with all employees across two states... WHY...although the company had a stellar safety record; Blue Cross & Blue Shield was raising their premium 30%. The company decided the ONLY course of action was to become self insured, lower medical coverage AND increase employee participation...

I laugh that you selectively dismiss the Rand Study...To date, 32 recipients of the Nobel Prize, primarily in the fields of economics and physics, have been affiliated with RAND at some point in their career. Yet you embrace as GOSPEL Betsy McCaughey...REALLY PC, I thought you were smarter than that. Betsy McCaughey is nothing but a hack, a mouthpiece for corporate health care...

You claim Healthcare has not skyrocketed... THEN you prove it is...what American receives a 6 - 8% raise each year, PLUS it is a compounded annually...

Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care

Introduction

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate and forcing businesses and families to cut back on operations and household expenses respectively.

In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.2

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

National Health Care Spending

* In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1

* Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3

* In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1

* Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3

* Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4


Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs

* Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2

* The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).

* Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2

* Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.2

* Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.5

* According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999.2

* The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 120 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.6

* The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, that exceeds $2,000 a year, rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 – a 16 percent increase.7


The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs

* National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage.2

* Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage.8

* A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

* A new survey shows that more than 25 percent said that housing problems resulted from medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the development of bad credit ratings.10

* About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs. 11

* A survey of Iowa consumers found that in order to cope with rising health insurance costs, 86 percent said they had cut back on how much they could save, and 44 percent said that they have cut back on food and heating expenses.12

* Retiring elderly couples will need $250,000 in savings just to pay for the most basic medical coverage.13 Many experts believe that this figure is conservative and that $300,000 may be a more realistic number.

* According to a recent report, the United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in comparison to Western European nations that have universal health insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess administrative costs and poorer quality of care.14

* The United States spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than its peer Western European nations.14


Time for Action on Reining in Health Care Costs

Policymakers and government officials agree that health care costs must be controlled. But they disagree on the best ways to address rapidly escalating health spending and health insurance premiums. Some favor price controls and imposing strict budgets on health care spending. Others believe free market competition is the best way to solve the problems. Public health advocates believe that if all Americans adopted healthy lifestyles, health care costs would decrease as people required less medical care.

There appears to be no agreement on a single solution to health care’s high price tag. Many approaches may be used to control costs. What we do know is if the rate of escalation in health care spending and health insurance premiums continues at current trends, the cost of inaction will severely affect employer’s bottom lines and consumer’s pocketbooks.

Notes

1. Keehan, S. et al. “Health Spending Projections Through 2017, Health Affairs Web Exclusive W146: 21 February 2008.
2. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2008 Annual Survey. September 2008.
3. California Health Care Foundation. Health Care Costs 101 -- 2005. 02 March 2005.
4. Pear, R., “U.S. Health Care Spending Reaches All-Time High: 15% of GDP.” The New York Times, 9 January 2004, 3.
5. McKinsey and Company. The McKinsey Quarterly Chart Focus Newsletter, “Will Health Benefit Costs Eclipse Profits,” September, 2004.
6. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2008 Annual Survey. September 2008.
7. Agency for Heathcare Research and Quality. Out-of-Pocket Expenditures on Health Care and Insurance Premiums Among the Non-elderly Population, 2003, March 2006.
8. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The Uninsured: A Primer, Key Facts About Americans without Health Insurance. 2004. 10 November 2004 Health Coverage & the Uninsured* - Research, Public Opinion, Facts & Analysis - Kaiser Family Foundation
9. Himmelstein, D, E. Warren, D. Thorne, and S. Woolhander, “Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy, “ Health Affairs Web Exclusive W5-63, 02 February , 2005.
10. The Access Project. Home Sick: How Medical Debt Undermines Housing Security. Boston, MA, November 2005.
11. Robertson, C.T., et al. “Get Sick, Get Out: The Medical Causes of Home Mortgage Foreclosures,” Health Matrix, 2008
12. Selzer and Company Inc. Department of Public Health 2005 Survey of Iowa Consumers, September 2005.
13. Fidelity Investments, Press Release, 06 March 2006.
14. McKinsey Global Institute. Accounting for the Cost in the United States. January 2007



http://www.nchc.org/documents/Cost%20Fact%20Sheet-2009.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about HALF your income, if the status quo is kept in place...

The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.
The Cost of Doing Nothing
Why the Cost of Failing to Fix Our Health System Is Greater than the Cost of Reform


BTW, you had your head handed to you HERE and you never responded PC..


The Rand Study in which you take so much joy is at best peripheral to the discussion, as you should have realized, as there no indication that the Obama plan would correct these problems in any way.
a)Medical knowledge is evolving so quickly that helping doctors keep up by delivering information on best practices would be beneficial. But telling doctors what to do for the sake of cost control in dangerous. The RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan research organization, found that often physicians did not give patients the optimal treatment for their condition. But over-treating patients was seldom the problem (only 11% of the time.) Failing to give patients a needed treatment was four times as big a problem (46% of the time.) That's why prompting doctors to do the right think will help patients but not curb spending.
Downgrading Health Care

b) Still, it remains to be seen whether certain drugs or procedures wouldn’t be denied to customers under a public plan as well. In fact, the criticism from conservatives has been that a public plan would be stingy in what it would cover in an effort to control costs. We can’t predict the future, but we find it unlikely that at least some denials wouldn’t take place no matter who is issuing insurance.
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan


The idea that healthcare costs are 'skyrocketing' is as bogus as most of your posts are.
1) The following is the annual growth of healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%

Skyrocketing? Compared to what? In 1970, it was 10.5% and in 1980 it was 13%.
Downgrading Health Care

Too bad your comprehension didn't skyrocket.

Now for a lesson in economics. Gratis.
Rather than viewing only the healthcare costs alone, consider the largest 'package' of strain on spendable income: together- housing & food & fuel & healthcare:

Taken together, the package takes up the same 53-55% as it has since 1960 That's over two and a half generations.


"By Betsy McCaughey Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., is a patient advocate, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, and a former Lt. Governor of New York State.
Downgrading Health Care
The administration has warned that soaring health spending threatens the stability of American families and the economy. These doomsday scenarios are untrue. Health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased 10.5 percent in 1970, 13 percent in 1980, and consistently less than 7 percent in each of the last five years, reaching a low of 6.1 percent a year ago. Each year since 1960, food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' expenditures, while housing has taken up a steady share. This has enabled Americans to spend an increasing share of their budgets on another necessity, healthcare. These four necessities together consume the same share of American spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, Americans are increasing the share of their spending that goes to recreation. Moderate income families can be helped to buy health coverage with vouchers, refundable tax credits, or debit cards. That's a low risk, "fix what's broken" approach."

Let's see what else you are wrong about.
"The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016."
And you would be basing your assumption on what study of "accuracy in government estimates..."

You must love phrases like "...Under this scenario, we estimate ..."

And, more: " ...you had your head handed to you ...'
Only in your addled brain.

No better proof of liberal what-passed-for-thinking then the view that you folks always know better than the people that you are 'concerned' about.

No matter how many studies show that not only do the vast majority (80-85%) say they are pleased with their healthcare, and the view is over 90% when those who have recently had a serious illness are polled, you need to show that they really don't know what is good for them.

“…while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own health care than with the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receive…a mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive.”.(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Defend Your Health Care


The need to be smarter than the rest of the proletariat is a liberal inferiority complex, but I realize that you guys are actually inferior.

So let's review.
Healthcare has not skyrocketed.
Folks by and large are happy with the current healthcare.
My head remains majestically in place.
Democrat talking points lead your around as though you have a ring through your nose.

Suggestions:
1. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite.
2. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps.
3. Drop the nonsense about declining care for pre-existing conditions, or else folks on their deathbed would take out life insurance.
4. Admit that the Obama care program is predicated on getting seniors to die.
5. Provide free lie-detector tests for Democrat politicians.

QUOTE]


Well,
Sorry that your comprehension is a limited as it is, but under Obamacare there may be some med for you.

In addition to the facts that I provided, let's try a little logic quiz:
Why do you think the administration was in such a hurry to get the scam passed?

Answer: about as many agree with you and the administration as believe that Elvis is still alive.

The more folks realize what's in the plan, the fewer agree with it. If the majority really wanted this plan, it would be law by August 6th.

But, the neurosis called liberalism states that you guys know better than the majority which doesn't want it.

Rather than thinking it through, you can reliably be counted on to mouth the company line.

But it is to your benefit to consider this summary of the Obama Plan:

1. Reduce access

2. Ration care

3. Help in the demise of the elderly.

 

[Bfgrn]

QUOTE]


Well,
Sorry that your comprehension is a limited as it is, but under Obamacare there may be some med for you.

In addition to the facts that I provided, let's try a little logic quiz:
Why do you think the administration was in such a hurry to get the scam passed?

Answer: about as many agree with you and the administration as believe that Elvis is still alive.

The more folks realize what's in the plan, the fewer agree with it. If the majority really wanted this plan, it would be law by August 6th.

But, the neurosis called liberalism states that you guys know better than the majority which doesn't want it.

Rather than thinking it through, you can reliably be counted on to mouth the company line.

But it is to your benefit to consider this summary of the Obama Plan:

1. Reduce access

2. Ration care

3. Help in the demise of the elderly.

Ah, the neurosis called liberalism...

Then THIS would have NOTHING to do with the honorable and noble Republicans...


Hey PC, how does it FEEL to be a mindless right wing parrot???

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, the neurosis called liberalism...

Then THIS would have NOTHING to do with the honorable and noble Republicans...


Hey PC, how does it FEEL to be a mindless right wing parrot???

Clearly I'm not mindless, as I've mastered the subject of Obamacare.

But your polemics become tiresome.

 

[Bfgrn]

Clearly I'm not mindless, as I've mastered the subject of Obamacare.

But your polemics become tiresome.

Well PC, clearly you've mastered Frank Luntz's right wing talking points...as polemic as it gets...a strategy to undermine and derail health care reform and works AGAINST the interests of the American people. LIES for corporate lobbyists that are spending 1.4 million dollars per DAY to protect insurance and pharma profits....only problem is...YOU don't get millions of dollars to be a mindless parrot...

So, you're just a mindless pea brain parrot...LOL

Research Firm Cited by GOP Is Owned by Health Insurer

Washington Post

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.

UnitedHealth 2Q Profit Doubles, Membership Declines

Wall Street Journal

UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s (UNH) second-quarter earnings more than doubled amid prior-year charges and an increase in revenue, though enrollment continued to decline as U.S. unemployment mounts and health-care reform looms.

UnitedHealth posted profit of $859 million, or 73 cents a share, up from $337 million, or 27 cents a share, a year earlier.

 

[PixieStix]

Clearly I'm not mindless, as I've mastered the subject of Obamacare.

But your polemics become tiresome.

I term it obamaScare and healthScare Plan

You have done a great job PC

 

[sealybobo]

I have no idea what you are talking about but I will answer your question even though you won't anser mine... Cost is not the only thing I consider when buying a car... Depends on the options.

Care to answer my question now????

You have no idea the analogy I'm trying to make? Stupid.

And you got the answer wrong. The answer is that HELL YEA you will buy another brand if it costs $6K less and does everything and MORE than your car does. Better gas milage, looks better, better f&B's, etc.

In other words, there is a better option than the healthcare you are getting now. Its called the public plan.

Funny you like foreign competition to come in and compete with our car companies but you don't want the government to compete with these insurance companies. Are you scared?

Tell me, will the government run it's health care company like Amtrak, Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid?

Someone made a good point last night. Medicare is all old people and they all use it a lot. It could/should be really expensive. There are no young people in the plan who don't get sick to spread the risk on. You know how insurance works, right? Well consider that if we all join them in one big public option, then the costs will go down because young people who don't get sick will be paying in but not using it.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Giving "medicare" to everyone, and having us pay for it of course, will be a good thing. It will make the program BETTER!!

 

[Old Rocks]

How many of you take your extra money in your check each week and give that to people who don't have health insurance?

Each and every one of us. How do you think that the emergency room care is funded? The hospitals must make up that loss somewhere, so they do it by passing on the costs to paying customers. It would cost us all far less if preventive care for these people was available before the problem reaches the emergency room stage.

 

[Old Rocks]

How many of you take your extra money in your check each week and give that to people who don't have health insurance?

Why don't you ask how much I put toward my own healthcare? That happens to be ZERO, because in reality there is money stolen from me each week from my government to take care of others who do not work, many times they do not work because they just don't feel like it, poor things.
Meanwhile I have no healthcare. But I really do not want to be part of a healthcare system that will soon be totally run by the same entity that controls my paycheck

Then get a real job! Good lord, a whining Conservative, too damned lazy to go out and get a job with good Health Care. This old liberal has a job where my company pays over 16,000 a year for the Health Insurance for my wife and I. And I am past SS age.

We are the only industrial nation where hundreds of thousands of familys go bankrupt every year because of health care costs. We are the only industrial nation where tens of millions of citizens have as their only access to health care the hospital emergency room. And we rank in the third world in longevity, infant mortality, and the health of our seniors.