Some lies about health care Obama clearly DID tell

[SmarterThanHick]

Or the claim that the plan will give Americans more choices, while removing the choice not to have health insurance? I thought we were going to have more choices, instead the plan points to fewer.

Whoa there cowboy. Cutting off part of a sentence and taking it out of context doesn't quite make you look too smart. When you say "more choices", the first question that you should be asking yourself is more choices of what. In this case, you are absolutely getting more choices of health insurance providers. It's not more choices of fruit in your supermarket, more choices or pliers, or a general "more choices". It's more choices of health insurance providers, which this is absolutely providing.

Yes, the one article actually provides a summary of 600 research studies. How does pointing out it was one article help your argument again? In addition, it mentioned another study as well as the CBO which agrees preventative medicine does not provide cost savings. I still think Obama is misleading people into thinking preventative medicine will save us significant money. It is irrelevant to our discussion about the lives it saves, since he is misleading us about cost savings. Again, where is Obama’s unbiased analysis that we can confirm he is not misleading us?

Because that "one article" which you are now minimizing, is the very same article that YOUR SOURCE used to extract its conclusion. So if you want to demonize, demote, or otherwise reject that "one article", you are also rejecting your own politi"fact" source.

While Obama has in the past made broad sweeping generalizations regarding preventive medicine, when it comes to this bill he has given two specific examples: colonoscopy, and mammogram. By your source (and that "one article" that overviewed 600 others) colonoscopy is cost saving. Mammogram has also been known to be cost saving for some time.

So again to review: he has mentioned two specific types of preventive medicine, both of which are proven to be cost saving. He has never once mentioned any of the preventive medical diagnostic tests that are not cost saving. Not once.

When have I said Democrats are evil?

I never accused you of such a thing, tho your schizophrenia makes me wonder...

I agree, we have an obesity problem and it is causing many health issues for many people. So, how about we focus on education and other methods instead of government inserting itself further into the health care business?

Because we *have* gone the route of education - you just haven't noticed it because it doesn't take a huge bill to address. The fact is, even if education were able to reduce the number of people who become obese, the people who are already obese are still at a health risk. Not an education risk. A health risk. So if you agree that obesity is a problem, how does the change in money saved change the problem?

More importantly, why is it you continue to only see money as the only thing valuable in this scenario? How about health? How about American lives? That's essentially what your argument comes down to - whether it's cost effective to save people's lives.

I understand, you are willing to give Obama a pass on his misrepresentations of the truth. Until you can show me that his numbers are only slightly off on the obesity savings you have no point.

Again I ask: if the problem hasn't changed by the misrepresentation (which you yourself just admitted), and the solution doesn't change, and America still saves money, what harm has the misrepresentation caused? Cuz it seems to me that saving lives and money is a win win win for America. So you show me the collateral damage.

You are missing the point about insurance companies too. The left is only giving you total dollar figures to show how big the total dollar figure of profit is. Do you know what the profit margin is for health insurance companies?

3-4%. What's your point? No one is banning them. No one is saying they can't make profit. The only thing that is happening is free market open competition. You are welcome to stay with your private insurer. I know I will. But I also know my insurance company isn't going to purposely look for ways to reject basic claims, whereas that's not the case in other states. There isn't a single person in this country who doesn't have a friend/relative who has faced a health insurance company "mistake". *That* is the problem: none of them have the patient's best interest in mind.

No, it does not change the problems we have with health care, however, his exaggerations and lies do decrease his credibility on the issue. How can we trust someone who exaggerates and lies to provide us with a solution that actually works?

Because as I've shown, despite the exaggeration, the problem remains unchanged, and the benefits of the solution, while diminished, are still benefits.

But I think there's an underlying misconception you just stated. The problem with people who are so against Obama is that they only focus on small pieces of what he proposes, claiming their one piece doesn't solve all the problems. That's short sighted and illogical. The industry is spiraling out of control. Step 1 is not "make everything instantly better". Step 1 is halting that spiral. He is proposing this by allowing for a public option with the patient's best interest as its goal, reforming malpractice lawsuits, identifying ineffective methods and removing them, and removing the ability for insurance companies to drop people when they don't want to pay.

OK so you don't like that idea. So let's look at what you propose to make Step 1 have everything instantly better: .. .... nothing. Your goal here has not once been to improve healthcare. Your goal here is to just complain about someone who is actually trying something for once. The status quo is failing. You want to continue with it?

So, why don’t you take off the partisan blinders and just familiarize yourself with Obama’s lies? He stated that he was never for a single payer system. How much more blatant can you get? Is it really that difficult to understand this concept based upon the evidence? I think you would prefer to stay “politically neutral” to avoid admitting Obama lied.

You're still missing the point of neutrality. The reason I don't care whether he was or wasn't for a single payer system is because he's not proposing one now. At all. The point is moot. Doesn't matter that you like steak if you're having chicken for dinner. So instead of wasting my time nitpicking over useless minutia of what isn't being done but what he may or may not have believed at some time in the past, I'm focusing on what's going on now. It has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with the actual changes being proposed. That again brings me back to the fact that you have no interest in actually addressing the healthcare issue - you're just looking (as far back as you can) for reasons to bash Obama, as if any of his beliefs (past or present) somehow make the current proposal less effective.

And what part of a public option is degraded because of his overestimates? No, you're not allowed to just allude to something being bad, you need to say *why* it's bad. So, why is a public option bad, and how do the exaggerations make it worse?)

It degrades my trust in Obama. It convinces me he does not know what he is talking about.

I ask you what part of his plan is bad. What parts fail. You respond by saying you don't trust him. You also respond by pointing towards other things that are bad (which I will get to below), but nowhere do you say why his plan is bad. You say you don't trust him. Perhaps that's the difference between you and I. See I'm looking at the facts presented to me on the plan itself, regardless of who is proposing it, or how good/evil/trustworthy/American/Republicrat they are. You're looking at Obama's past beliefs for reasons to discredit his current proposal. This shows you are biased, have already formed a conclusion, and are grasping at straws to find anything that mildly supports your pre-conceived suspicions.

Here are some facts with some questions for you about Obama’s “public option” plan:

• The government already spends around one-half of the total amount on health care through existing government programs. So where is the cost savings in this half? Where is the unbiased analysis which shows us the significant savings that is going to be seen in these programs without cutting benefits?

First, if you're going to make any broad sweeping statement, provide a source. Assuming that's true, how does that make his current plan bad? Again, you can point to a number of other bad things that still need to be addressed, but this plan is not designed to instantly and unequivocally solve all the problems of the world. The fact still remains that the public option is not relying on tax subsidization, and is attempting to pay for itself, not contribute to the deficit.

• About one-half of the increase in costs over the last decade has been a result of technological advances in the medical field. Are we going to stop becoming the leader in medical technology development? How is Obama going to address this half of all cost increases?

That's actually false (again, source please). Perhaps you can claim that half the costs are due to technology and doctors readily recommending MRI in defensive medicine, but what major technological breakthroughs have you seen in medicine in the last decade? The problem comes not from new imaging, but ridiculous inflation costs of old imaging techniques such as MRI. You can't even find the price of an MRI if you wanted to - companies keep it hidden to charge more.

But yet again I ask: even if that were true, how does it make Obama's proposal wrong? Better yet, how does this plan negatively impact that? Medical technology development is a completely separate sector than healthcare, funded by the NIH or industry.

• The American people are shouldering the burden for pharmaceutical development. These costs are not being carried by other countries. This is not fair if other countries are to see the benefit of these new drugs is it? How is Obama addressing this?

Yet again has nothing to do with Obama's proposed plan. Furthermore, Americans do not shoulder the burden. There hasn't been a single blockbuster drug come from NIH funding anytime recently - everything is from private companies investing their private money. It's hypocritical for you to complain in the previous point that we need to stay the leader of medtech development, yet here complain about pharm development. So again I ask: how does Big Pharma make Obama's plan wrong?

• Another reason for increased health insurance premiums is because of government intrusion into the market through Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Does Obama mention or address this at all either?

Again: source? There are MANY reasons why insurance premiums are high (including premiums paying for the uninsured, healthcare inflation, lack of open market purchasing, etc etc). To say there is only one is foolish. But yet again you point to other bad things as if somehow they degrade the good that can come from the proposed plan. You know, crime is up in certain parts of the country, and Obama doesn't address that either in his health plan.

All you seem to be able to do is finger point at other bad things, while being completely unable to debate or refute the merits of the proposed plan.

The lie you are not addressing is really his biggest and worst on this subject. He is selling his plan as a “public option”, and saying he was never for a single payer system. He should know full well that in providing a “public option” that it will continue to increase private health insurance premiums which will force more people to the “public option”, which will then eventually become the only option. Then it won’t be an option at all and he will have his single payer system.

So wait, lemme get this straight. While he's not proposing a single player system, you are so paranoid that you believe it's really his super secret evil agenda and that it will make all private insurance companies go bankrupt? Yet again: source? Open market competition has never been a bad thing. With all the other industries you pointed out as having government influence, not a single one is about unsubsidized open market competition.

I agree that changes need to be made. I just want it done without the government becoming an even bigger health insurance provider.

And how do you propose that? Cuz as far as I can see, you haven't made a single effort to point out an alternative solution.

 

[trueblue]

Or the claim that the plan will give Americans more choices, while removing the choice not to have health insurance? I thought we were going to have more choices, instead the plan points to fewer.

Whoa there cowboy. Cutting off part of a sentence and taking it out of context doesn't quite make you look too smart. When you say "more choices", the first question that you should be asking yourself is more choices of what. In this case, you are absolutely getting more choices of health insurance providers. It's not more choices of fruit in your supermarket, more choices or pliers, or a general "more choices". It's more choices of health insurance providers, which this is absolutely providing.

So if I go to the supermarket and there are 10 new kinds of apples but they no longer sale bananas, you believe that is giving me more choices?

More varieties of something we already have may decrease the price of that item, but at the end of the day I have lost the only real option: apples or bananas? I'd prefer the option to buy something other than health insurance (with the money I save from not having health insurance) to being compelled by government to spend my money in a certain way. For me, this is true no matter how many varieties of health insurance they provide or how much money it saves someone else. My bottom line is that I'm spending money for something I don't use.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So if I go to the supermarket and there are 10 new kinds of apples but they no longer sale bananas, you believe that is giving me more choices?

Well, if they say they're giving you more choices of apples... and you find the bananas missing, then yes they are delivering on their claim.

If you want to complain that they're taking away an option to not have insurance, complain about that. Just don't complain that THE MAN is lying because they say you're getting more choices when you're not. They're telling you you're getting more choices of health insurance providers, and you are. Whether you dislike them removing the option of not having insurance has nothing to do with lying - it's a stand alone complaint.

I'd prefer the option to buy something other than health insurance (with the money I save from not having health insurance) to being compelled by government to spend my money in a certain way.

You are already being compelled by the government to spend money in certain ways. Firefighters, police, military defense, and streetlamps come to mind.

The fact continually returns to the uninsured burdening the healthcare system. I know it seems smart to not have it, trust me I've been there. Young Americans are the largest group who believe they just don't need it. And let's face it, for any random little sickness you get, even going to the doctor and paying out of pocket is going to be cheaper than insurance. Trust me I understand. However when something serious happens, people who are uninsured look towards everyone else to pick up the slack. Every time. So tell me - if someone like you got into a car crash or suddenly needed a large operation, what should they do?

 

[edthecynic]

It became very obvious to me that he does not know much about the health care industry when he demonized doctors as ripping the toncils out of people and amputating people's limbs to make a profit. His whole agenda is not about health care reform, it's about a take over of 6% of our economy.

It became very obvious to me that you are brainwashed by GOP Hate-Run media when you demonize Obama for telling the truth that you don't want to hear. Your whole agenda is making Obama fail and not about improving health care.

Unnecessary surgery exposed! Why 60% of all surgeries are medically unjustified and how surgeons exploit patients to generate profits
Unnecessary surgery exposed! Why 60% of all surgeries are medically unjustified and how surgeons exploit patients to generate profits

Every year millions of Americans go under the knife, but many of them are enduring great pain and shelling out thousands of dollars for surgeries they don't really need. In fact, the only people who seem to really benefit from these unnecessary medical procedures are the medical professionals who stand to make exorbitant amounts of money from performing them.

An estimated 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed each year, writes Gary Null, PhD., in Death by Medicine. Rather than reverse the problems they purport to fix, these unwarranted procedures can often lead to greater health problems and even death. A 1995 report by Milliman & Robertson, Inc. concluded that nearly 60 percent of all surgeries performed are medically unnecessary, according to Under The Influence of Modern Medicine by Terry A. Rondberg. Some of the most major and frequently performed unnecessary surgeries include hysterectomies, Cesarean sections and coronary artery bypass surgeries.

Natural News???
Just need to take some garlic...right?

I'm Italian and you can never take too much garlic.

I gave more than just that one link and the links cited a number of different studies.

 

[trueblue]

So if I go to the supermarket and there are 10 new kinds of apples but they no longer sale bananas, you believe that is giving me more choices?

Well, if they say they're giving you more choices of apples... and you find the bananas missing, then yes they are delivering on their claim.

If you want to complain that they're taking away an option to not have insurance, complain about that. Just don't complain that THE MAN is lying because they say you're getting more choices when you're not. They're telling you you're getting more choices of health insurance providers, and you are. Whether you dislike them removing the option of not having insurance has nothing to do with lying - it's a stand alone complaint.

I'd prefer the option to buy something other than health insurance (with the money I save from not having health insurance) to being compelled by government to spend my money in a certain way.

You are already being compelled by the government to spend money in certain ways. Firefighters, police, military defense, and streetlamps come to mind.

The fact continually returns to the uninsured burdening the healthcare system. I know it seems smart to not have it, trust me I've been there. Young Americans are the largest group who believe they just don't need it. And let's face it, for any random little sickness you get, even going to the doctor and paying out of pocket is going to be cheaper than insurance. Trust me I understand. However when something serious happens, people who are uninsured look towards everyone else to pick up the slack. Every time. So tell me - if someone like you got into a car crash or suddenly needed a large operation, what should they do?

With any other product, and in fact with health insurance, the restriction of choices presented in this plan would be called deceptive at best. Using the grocery store example again: if my supermarket advertised more fruit selection and then increased the variety of apples while discontinuing bananas, I'd claim false advertising. In that scenario, they have provided no additional products from which to choose. My consumption of apples will remain constant regardless of whether the store now offers gala or fuji apples while my consumption of bananas will go to zero; in the end apples are apples and I am worse off because I'm no longer able to eat bananas. Similarly, adding insurance providers is not giving me more choices-- that would require offering products that are different. They are only giving me a lot of the same choice, blatantly lying about my choices and taxing my income (or worse, my health) in a roundabout way.

The idea of the uninsured always being a burden is also a myth. There still exist individuals who exist without insurance and pay their medical bills in a responsible fashion. I am an example of that. Because my medical bills tend to be low, it is less expensive for me on average to pay the bills rather than the insurance. When there was an unexpected surgery in my family last Christmas, I paid for that, too. It took some time, but I paid it off. On the whole, however, my family is generally healthy. Requiring health insurance, etc., penalizes my family for our good health. Why should I be penalized for being healthy? And why should we be healthy if we could just eat what we want and let the taxpayers foot most of the bill for the medical complications that would cause?

 

[Ringel05]

It became very obvious to me that he does not know much about the health care industry when he demonized doctors as ripping the toncils out of people and amputating people's limbs to make a profit. His whole agenda is not about health care reform, it's about a take over of 6% of our economy.

It became very obvious to me that you are brainwashed by GOP Hate-Run media when you demonize Obama for telling the truth that you don't want to hear. Your whole agenda is making Obama fail and not about improving health care.

Unnecessary surgery exposed! Why 60% of all surgeries are medically unjustified and how surgeons exploit patients to generate profits
Unnecessary surgery exposed! Why 60% of all surgeries are medically unjustified and how surgeons exploit patients to generate profits

Every year millions of Americans go under the knife, but many of them are enduring great pain and shelling out thousands of dollars for surgeries they don't really need. In fact, the only people who seem to really benefit from these unnecessary medical procedures are the medical professionals who stand to make exorbitant amounts of money from performing them.

An estimated 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed each year, writes Gary Null, PhD., in Death by Medicine. Rather than reverse the problems they purport to fix, these unwarranted procedures can often lead to greater health problems and even death. A 1995 report by Milliman & Robertson, Inc. concluded that nearly 60 percent of all surgeries performed are medically unnecessary, according to Under The Influence of Modern Medicine by Terry A. Rondberg. Some of the most major and frequently performed unnecessary surgeries include hysterectomies, Cesarean sections and coronary artery bypass surgeries.

What a joke.

edthecynic and what a joke. Isn't that a double negative?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

yet again I will repeat, true blue, that the store is not advertising more fruit selection - they're advertising more apples. and you're getting more apples while complaining about false advertising about fewer meat selections. if you don't know how to understand context, don't call other people liars for using it correctly. Here's a simpler task: start with a quote. Show me the quote from Obama.

Secondly: you completely avoided the question. I asked what if something large happened to you? How much was your family member's surgery and hospital stay? $30,000? $90,000? $200,000+ If not, what would you do if it were that high?

 

[Christopher]

Because that "one article" which you are now minimizing, is the very same article that YOUR SOURCE used to extract its conclusion. So if you want to demonize, demote, or otherwise reject that "one article", you are also rejecting your own politi"fact" source.

While Obama has in the past made broad sweeping generalizations regarding preventive medicine, when it comes to this bill he has given two specific examples: colonoscopy, and mammogram. By your source (and that "one article" that overviewed 600 others) colonoscopy is cost saving. Mammogram has also been known to be cost saving for some time.

So again to review: he has mentioned two specific types of preventive medicine, both of which are proven to be cost saving. He has never once mentioned any of the preventive medical diagnostic tests that are not cost saving. Not once.

I’m not minimizing it, you are and that was my point. Right, he used the broad sweeping generalizations to help sell his plans. You still have not provided a credible source for how much savings his plans for preventative medicine will save. Just because he has “mentioned” only a few preventative measures now means what?

I never accused you of such a thing.

You are correct you did not directly accuse me of such a thing. It seemed to be implied in your post, though.

Because we *have* gone the route of education - you just haven't noticed it because it doesn't take a huge bill to address. The fact is, even if education were able to reduce the number of people who become obese, the people who are already obese are still at a health risk. Not an education risk. A health risk. So if you agree that obesity is a problem, how does the change in money saved change the problem?

More importantly, why is it you continue to only see money as the only thing valuable in this scenario? How about health? How about American lives? That's essentially what your argument comes down to - whether it's cost effective to save people's lives.

I said “and other methods” as well. I know we have “gone the route of education” somewhat, but why not more? So, is the government going to force the people who are obese now to become healthy?

I have only been discussing money in this thread because it is on subject. I am showing people the fact that Obama has lied regarding health care reform. No, my argument on health care does not come down to what you say it does. This thread has been about discussing Obama’s lies.

Again I ask: if the problem hasn't changed by the misrepresentation (which you yourself just admitted), and the solution doesn't change, and America still saves money, what harm has the misrepresentation caused? Cuz it seems to me that saving lives and money is a win win win for America. So you show me the collateral damage.

Once we agree Obama has lied or misrepresented things about his plans and that perhaps his plans are not the best way to go, then we can come up with better solutions. Until both sides of the aisle take off their political blinders this cannot be accomplished. So, first things first.

The collateral damage is that too many people are blindly following Obama and not mentioning his misrepresentations and outright lies. You tell me how that helps create a win win for America. It is a very big “if” whether Obama’s plan will save money, which is the point.

3-4%. What's your point? No one is banning them. No one is saying they can't make profit. The only thing that is happening is free market open competition. You are welcome to stay with your private insurer. I know I will. But I also know my insurance company isn't going to purposely look for ways to reject basic claims, whereas that's not the case in other states. There isn't a single person in this country who doesn't have a friend/relative who has faced a health insurance company "mistake". *That* is the problem: none of them have the patient's best interest in mind.

My point was to show you that their profits are not as large as many on the left portray them. Their “large” profits are used consistently to demonize them and Obama has done exactly that in order to sell his plans.

How does free market competition occur when insurance companies are competing with the government? Costs have increased in insurance premiums as a direct result of Medicare, Medicaid, etc. (which I will provide a source for below).

You must be talking about the Health Insurance Exchange. Yes, they have tried that in Massachusetts. Too bad it has shown to be way more costly than they thought. It is the reason Massachusetts is faced with a $9 billion budget shortfall. I think this only helps prove Obama’s plan will not save money.

Because as I've shown, despite the exaggeration, the problem remains unchanged, and the benefits of the solution, while diminished, are still benefits.

But I think there's an underlying misconception you just stated. The problem with people who are so against Obama is that they only focus on small pieces of what he proposes, claiming their one piece doesn't solve all the problems. That's short sighted and illogical. The industry is spiraling out of control. Step 1 is not "make everything instantly better". Step 1 is halting that spiral. He is proposing this by allowing for a public option with the patient's best interest as its goal, reforming malpractice lawsuits, identifying ineffective methods and removing them, and removing the ability for insurance companies to drop people when they don't want to pay.

OK so you don't like that idea. So let's look at what you propose to make Step 1 have everything instantly better: .. .... nothing. Your goal here has not once been to improve healthcare. Your goal here is to just complain about someone who is actually trying something for once. The status quo is failing. You want to continue with it?

I will explain the problems with his ideas in much of my other responses here. Understand that I am focusing on his lies in this thread. Until people can accept in their minds that he is another lying politician we cannot trust, then we cannot change anything. I only gave you some of the “pieces” wrong with his plans because you asked. They are not small pieces either. How about we analyze the reasons why things are spiraling by looking at what is causing the increases? I have given you some big reasons why costs are increasing. I will provide the sources below, just as I have provided them before in this forum.

You're still missing the point of neutrality. The reason I don't care whether he was or wasn't for a single payer system is because he's not proposing one now. At all. The point is moot. Doesn't matter that you like steak if you're having chicken for dinner. So instead of wasting my time nitpicking over useless minutia of what isn't being done but what he may or may not have believed at some time in the past, I'm focusing on what's going on now. It has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with the actual changes being proposed. That again brings me back to the fact that you have no interest in actually addressing the healthcare issue - you're just looking (as far back as you can) for reasons to bash Obama, as if any of his beliefs (past or present) somehow make the current proposal less effective.

Again, until you can understand that Obama is not telling the whole truth on aspects with his plan, we cannot move forward. His step 1 to a single payer system is by implementing the government option (he has even said that and so have other Democrats). If you listen to what Obama has said, he knows that a single payer system cannot be implemented immediately. The problem is that he recently has lied about this; he used the words that he was “never” for a single payer system. He is also portraying his plan as not a Trojan horse for a single payer system. These are both big lies.

I only looked back a couple of months. That was definitely not as far back as I could look. I’m not missing your point about neutrality either. I understand it as the politically correct way to say you are going to ignore the lies Obama is telling so that you can continue to fully support and follow him. It is the same thing many on the other side of the aisle do as well. Yet you say it is wasting time to point out some big lies Obama is telling. It has never seemed to be a waste of time for many Democrats who point out Republican lies.

I ask you what part of his plan is bad. What parts fail. You respond by saying you don't trust him. You also respond by pointing towards other things that are bad (which I will get to below), but nowhere do you say why his plan is bad. You say you don't trust him. Perhaps that's the difference between you and I. See I'm looking at the facts presented to me on the plan itself, regardless of who is proposing it, or how good/evil/trustworthy/American/Republicrat they are. You're looking at Obama's past beliefs for reasons to discredit his current proposal. This shows you are biased, have already formed a conclusion, and are grasping at straws to find anything that mildly supports your pre-conceived suspicions.

I explained that the government option will eventually create a government monopoly, Obama and others already know this. That is the biggest reason I do not want it. Also, he is portraying it as a plan that will create cost savings and help stop the spiral you mentioned and I see very little that will actually do that. Do you really believe that by requiring insurance companies to provide more coverage that they will not pass on their costs to their policy holders? Do you really believe that private insurers are not going increase premiums once the government has entered the market, based upon the facts about the effects of Medicare and Medicaid and other sources?

All I see is that costs will continue to go up over the long term with Obama’s plan and that eventually we will not have an option for health insurance. Do you think placing caps on what malpractice insurance providers charge physicians is the right way to tackle those costs? It will just decrease the number of malpractice insurance providers and how will that be a good thing?

I have already formed a conclusion because I’ve studied the facts. Perhaps you should stop using selective reasoning to form your conclusions.

First, if you're going to make any broad sweeping statement, provide a source. Assuming that's true, how does that make his current plan bad? Again, you can point to a number of other bad things that still need to be addressed, but this plan is not designed to instantly and unequivocally solve all the problems of the world. The fact still remains that the public option is not relying on tax subsidization, and is attempting to pay for itself, not contribute to the deficit.

As I said, he sells his plan as a way to stop the spiral. I don’t see it happening. Where is the credible analysis which proves me wrong? Here is a thread that gives the sources for the several points I have made from here down (just look at the first post). http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ainst-the-current-healthcare-reform-bill.html

That's actually false (again, source please). Perhaps you can claim that half the costs are due to technology and doctors readily recommending MRI in defensive medicine, but what major technological breakthroughs have you seen in medicine in the last decade? The problem comes not from new imaging, but ridiculous inflation costs of old imaging techniques such as MRI. You can't even find the price of an MRI if you wanted to - companies keep it hidden to charge more. But yet again I ask: even if that were true, how does it make Obama's proposal wrong? Better yet, how does this plan negatively impact that? Medical technology development is a completely separate sector than healthcare, funded by the NIH or industry.

No, it is true, check the source I gave in the other thread. Obama is not really addressing a very substantial cost increase.

Yet again has nothing to do with Obama's proposed plan. Furthermore, Americans do not shoulder the burden. There hasn't been a single blockbuster drug come from NIH funding anytime recently - everything is from private companies investing their private money. It's hypocritical for you to complain in the previous point that we need to stay the leader of medtech development, yet here complain about pharm development. So again I ask: how does Big Pharma make Obama's plan wrong?

It has nothing to do with it because it is not in Obama’s plan, you’re right. But is it an issue to just ignore? Read the source I provided. It has been an issue for some time.

Again: source? There are MANY reasons why insurance premiums are high (including premiums paying for the uninsured, healthcare inflation, lack of open market purchasing, etc etc). To say there is only one is foolish. But yet again you point to other bad things as if somehow they degrade the good that can come from the proposed plan. You know, crime is up in certain parts of the country, and Obama doesn't address that either in his health plan.

All you seem to be able to do is finger point at other bad things, while being completely unable to debate or refute the merits of the proposed plan.

Exactly, there are many reasons insurance premiums are going up. I have given you one-half of the cost increases in the first point alone. You mentioned inflation. It is clear that the technology advancements, pharmaceutical development, inflation and cost increases from Medicare and Medicaid in the market would account for a major portion of the increases.

Please explain to me, based upon facts, how you see Obama’s plan as actually helping to stop the spiraling costs. All I see are continued increases in costs.

So wait, lemme get this straight. While he's not proposing a single player system, you are so paranoid that you believe it's really his super secret evil agenda and that it will make all private insurance companies go bankrupt? Yet again: source? Open market competition has never been a bad thing. With all the other industries you pointed out as having government influence, not a single one is about unsubsidized open market competition.

I’m not paranoid, Obama has already said that this is his plan himself. Should I provide the video? Barney Frank and others have said the same thing about the government option as well. But if you don’t believe them, perhaps you will believe this source: The Public Option Two-Step - WSJ.com

A rhetorical gong Mr. Obama has been banging a lot lately is the idea that the people pointing all this out are liars. "When you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care," he said in one speech, "know this: They're not telling the truth." He adds that opposition to a public option isn't "based on any evidence" and that it is "illegitimate" to argue that his program is "is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system."

So much for changing the political tone. Perhaps the President should check in with his more honest liberal allies. Jacob Hacker, now a professor of political science at Berkeley, came up with the intellectual architecture for the public option when he was a graduate student in the 1990s. "Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there,'" Mr. Hacker explained in a speech last year. "I'm telling you, we're going to get there, over time, slowly."

You should read the whole article, it is not too long. It will really open your eyes to the truth. This is another big lie Obama has told recently. The type of open market competition Obama is proposing is bad. It is already being tried in Massachussetts and it seems to be completely failing to stop the spiralling costs.

Again, you seem to be implying that I think Obama (a Democrat) is “evil”.

And how do you propose that? Cuz as far as I can see, you haven't made a single effort to point out an alternative solution.

I would be glad to discuss alternative solutions. I will give you a few of my thoughts below. I know there are other proposals which have been rejected by the Democrats. Please answer some of my questions about how you think Obama’s plan will stop the spiral. Again, I just still don’t see it based upon the facts and reality. You have somehow been led to believe the government entering the market itself creates healthy competition.

One thing that the government can do is provide incentive for people to open their own practice as a doctor/physician. Provide incentives for people to become nurses, etc. They can do that in a number of ways, but I think one way would be through tort reform as Canada implemented. There are many small business doctors/physicians who struggle to pay the malpractice insurance. Obama was actually booed by the AMA when he said he would not push for limits on malpractice jury awards. Go here: Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Is Obama really listening to the people on his plans? There are those who have retired early to avoid paying the increases in this insurance. Do you know what the cost difference between Canada and the US is in malpractice insurance premiums? Check the source I gave, it provides it.

Increasing the number of doctors would help to bring costs down. Tort reform would also tend to increase the number of companies providing malpractice insurance, which would bring these insurance costs down for doctors/physicians as well. If Obama’s plan is implemented, how are we going to deal with the increase in demand for health care if we do not increase the supply for health care providers first?

Again, only until we can hold our politicians accountable for lying and we the people come together will we be able to come up with the alternative solutions that will actually work. What is the point of discussing the alternative solutions when one side or the other will not accept their solutions are based upon lies and misrepresentations, that their “solutions” will not really work if they look at the facts and reality?

 

[trueblue]

Quotes? How about "My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition."? From an economic perspective, choice includes the ability to substitute or consume elsewhere. If it is as you say, and we're only getting more of the same from which to choose, why is this a talking point?

That said, I agree with Obama's statement here. We do need increased competition. But forcing it isn't nearly as effective as simply removing existing barriers to entry and letting the economy work. Allow people to choose not to have insurance, but then the consequence has to be on them. No way to pay for a needed kidney transplant? Sorry! No money for chemotherapy? No chemotherapy.

Yes, the ER is required to treat whoever comes in with or without insurance. Okay. Treat them. But don't admit them. Tell people what is going on, patch it up, and send them on their way. There is no reason that has to be an exorbitant cost.

Finally, you asked what I would do if faced with an expensive medical emergency. I'd do just what I have always done. Pay the bills. Work with the hospital on a payment plan, get extra work or loans where needed and pay the bills. Healthcare is a service-- not an entitlement. If I want healthcare I can get it the same way I could get a Ferrari-- go to work and pay the bills.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Quotes? How about "My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition."? From an economic perspective, choice includes the ability to substitute or consume elsewhere. If it is as you say, and we're only getting more of the same from which to choose, why is this a talking point?

Looks like he's talking about CONSUMERS. I bolded and enlarged the word in your quote so you see it better. If you decide to not pay for something, guess what you ARENT? That's right! You're not a consumer. So, it seems to me that choice and competition is being offered to consumers. You're just annoyed that you have to be a consumer now, which is understandable frustration, but not because anyone lied.

Finally, you asked what I would do if faced with an expensive medical emergency. I'd do just what I have always done. Pay the bills. Work with the hospital on a payment plan, get extra work or loans where needed and pay the bills. Healthcare is a service-- not an entitlement. If I want healthcare I can get it the same way I could get a Ferrari-- go to work and pay the bills.

You are an honorable man then, but unfortunately it's not how most people work. You're in a small minority. A $200,000 unexpected hospital stay makes people bankrupt, not bank-going for loans (and some people can't even GET loans that high). So what do you propose happens to the people who did ring up that high bill, but unlike you, have no method of paying, and no ability to get the money?

Here's a better question: when you grow old and are retired, what will you do with such a bill if you aren't (or can't) work any longer?

 

[trueblue]

I guess I see where you're coming from, though I still feel the wording is deceptive. A consumer is any person with an ability to purchase goods and services. We are all consumers. We all choose what to buy and what not to buy. I consider myself a consumer of health services. That doesn't mean I am a consumer of all health products, only those I need. By requiring me to purchase health insurance, I am losing options because I'm told what to buy and because I have less money for other items I'd rather purchase. Competition is injured because we all have to buy the same product (which will, by the way, increase the price, not decrease it). It's a sneaky thing to say, though I see what you're saying.

For the other half of your question there is an easy solution: don't ring up the bill in the first place. When I'm old and out of money I will have two options: turn to my family for support or accept my time has come. I guess I may also try some form of alternative medicine, but maybe not. Perhaps too many of us are too afraid of death. I think it is more honorable to die in poverty than live as a burden on everyone around you. By the same token, people should choose to be more charitable to the less fortunate more often. But forcing "goodwill" isn't goodwill at all-- it's just another tax.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I’m not minimizing it, you are and that was my point. Right, he used the broad sweeping generalizations to help sell his plans. You still have not provided a credible source for how much savings his plans for preventative medicine will save. Just because he has “mentioned” only a few preventative measures now means what?

It means those are the preventive measures he's focusing on, which have been proven to be cost saving.

You have yet to show a single preventive measure he's proposing that isn't cost saving. You're drawing a poorly formed conclusion based on a generalization while ignoring the details, when the details prove you to be wrong.

I never accused you of such a thing.

You are correct you did not directly accuse me of such a thing. It seemed to be implied in your post, though.

I implied that you said Democrats are evil? I think that previous sentence was the first time I've even typed the word "democrats" on this forum (darn there's two now)...

I said “and other methods” as well. I know we have “gone the route of education” somewhat, but why not more? So, is the government going to force the people who are obese now to become healthy?

I have only been discussing money in this thread because it is on subject. I am showing people the fact that Obama has lied regarding health care reform. No, my argument on health care does not come down to what you say it does. This thread has been about discussing Obama’s lies.

So, we went with education, it's done nothing, and you want... more... even tho we're concurrently doing more... and it's still not working. And yet again I ask: even if education prevents people from becoming obese, what do you plan on doing with the people who are already obese. No, the government is not trying to force people who are obese to become healthy. The main cost is in treating people who are already obese. We need to deal with their health issues one way or another, and as we're going now, we're only treating symptoms as they arise. First presentation to the doctor: heart attack. Great.

As to you only discussing "lies", does this mean you agree that the value of American lives, regardless of money, is truly the goal behind all of this?

Once we agree Obama has lied or misrepresented things about his plans and that perhaps his plans are not the best way to go, then we can come up with better solutions. Until both sides of the aisle take off their political blinders this cannot be accomplished. So, first things first.

And yet again I've stated - even with misrepresentations (which I agree he appears to have done, whether purposely or inadvertently is another discussion), how does that change the solution? You just mentioned a "better solution". OK, we're only going to save 10 million dollars on obesity with his solution - do you have a better one? Does anyone? No... no not at all. Regardless of the overestimate, the problem and solution is still exactly the same.

The collateral damage is that too many people are blindly following Obama and not mentioning his misrepresentations and outright lies. You tell me how that helps create a win win for America. It is a very big “if” whether Obama’s plan will save money, which is the point.

No, the point is and always will be American lives. The problem is that people like you aren't looking for a solution. You're looking to find fault in minutia which doesn't alter anything. I am not blindly following anyone - that's not how critical thinkers work. What creates a win win for America is understanding the problem, and noting that the proposed solution will still save lives AND save money. Again I ask (since you so conveniently ignored it): where is the loss?

How does free market competition occur when insurance companies are competing with the government? Costs have increased in insurance premiums as a direct result of Medicare, Medicaid, etc. (which I will provide a source for below).

Because the new government option is competing in the exact same market with the exact same limitations and no (I repeat, NO) advantage. How do you define "free market competition"?

You must be talking about the Health Insurance Exchange. Yes, they have tried that in Massachusetts. Too bad it has shown to be way more costly than they thought. It is the reason Massachusetts is faced with a $9 billion budget shortfall. I think this only helps prove Obama’s plan will not save money.

That is not what they tried in Massachusetts (public option had nothing to do with it), and what happened in Massachusetts is not what is being proposed now. Go check your facts and try again.

Until people can accept in their minds that he is another lying politician we cannot trust, then we cannot change anything.

And herein lies the stupidity. All politicians are... well, politicians. Negating everything they say due to over-exaggerations is just as bad as blindly following them. If you can't be a critical thinker and ascertain whether proposed solutions can stand on their own two feet (regardless of what the politicians are telling you), you shouldn't be talking about those solutions at all.

For example: let's say a small town is having horrible flooding problems, and the town mayor proposes he build a dam on the nearby river because dams save $20 million per year in damages. Now let's say you found out that dams really only save $2 million per year in damages. The politician lied, but the solution is still the best plan. In my mind, I want the dam in my town because I can see past the political garbage and realize the solution is still sound. In your mind, you completely dismiss everything, insisting the person can't be trusted and therefore everything he says is wrong. Meanwhile your basement floods every week.

Intelligence is thinking for yourself about how this helps or hurts.

His step 1 to a single payer system is by implementing the government option (he has even said that and so have other Democrats). If you listen to what Obama has said, he knows that a single payer system cannot be implemented immediately. The problem is that he recently has lied about this; he used the words that he was “never” for a single payer system. He is also portraying his plan as not a Trojan horse for a single payer system. These are both big lies.

OK so even tho public option is good, it can transform into something else that's bad, so therefore we shouldn't even have the public option even though it's good. Here's an idea: acknowledge that the public option is good, go with it, and flip out hardcore if the thing you ACTUALLY don't like is ever proposed. Note the trend of ignorant Americans: things you fear, whether real or not, means all progress must stop.

It has never seemed to be a waste of time for many Democrats who point out Republican lies.

That's because the lies of our previous president sent us into an unsubstantiated war, killing millions of people and wasting $9billion+ . OK, now let's look at what happens if we ignore Obama's "lies": the health of the average obese person improves, and $10 million is saved. Yeah... completely equal.

I explained that the government option will eventually create a government monopoly

If by "explained" you mean "made up economic concepts", than sure. I can similarly "explain" that his plan will make every American a millionaire, and that everyone will ride hovercrafts. Saying something doesn't support it. So either provide a legitimate source that supports your poorly formed supposition, or please stop assuming your explanation in and of itself has any value.

Do you think placing caps on what malpractice insurance providers charge physicians is the right way to tackle those costs? It will just decrease the number of malpractice insurance providers and how will that be a good thing?

Yes, yes I think it is a very very good thing, along with malpractice reform. Again, you "explaining" how it will decrease insurance providers doesn't mean that's what will happen. Provide a source, please. As I see it, nothing will change. Ob/Gyn's get charged the largest premiums because they are sued anytime something is wrong with a baby, regardless of whether it's their fault or not. Malpractice reform + caps = good.

It has nothing to do with it because it is not in Obama’s plan, you’re right. But is it an issue to just ignore? Read the source I provided. It has been an issue for some time.

So you propose every single problem even remotely related to healthcare should be addressed in this bill (which is already way too large) else the bill shouldn't even be considered? That's not only negligent it's immature reasoning. It's hypocritical for you to wallow about how the plan affects the open market, while at the same time complaining that this open market is so bad. You don't get to play both sides.

Regardless, we can deal with Big Pharma at another time. McDonalds makes a higher profit margin than any pharmaceutical company. Again, you're a hypocrite.

Exactly, there are many reasons insurance premiums are going up. I have given you one-half of the cost increases in the first point alone. You mentioned inflation. It is clear that the technology advancements, pharmaceutical development, inflation and cost increases from Medicare and Medicaid in the market would account for a major portion of the increases.

In the last post I asked you to point to these technological advancements you speak of. You have yet to do so. Please try again.

Please explain to me, based upon facts, how you see Obama’s plan as actually helping to stop the spiraling costs. All I see are continued increases in costs.

I imagine with more people having health insurance, we will at first spend more. But let's remove the ridiculous administrative overhead of private insurers, let's remove the ridiculous malpractice lawsuits, and let's remove the defensive medicine. Let's promote mammogram and colonoscopy (both cost saving). Let's prevent insurance companies from dropping people or making "mistakes" that cost Americans more money.

I’m not paranoid, Obama has already said that this is his plan himself. Should I provide the video? Barney Frank and others have said the same thing about the government option as well. But if you don’t believe them, perhaps you will believe this source: The Public Option Two-Step - WSJ.com

An opinion paper from months ago? Yeah, let's go ahead and ignore everything that's happened recently, including the speech of the president himself stating what things are and aren't. But again I ask: if step 1 is good, and step 2 is bad... why not accept 1 and flip out as you are if step 2 gets proposed? Why reject the good in anticipation of the bad, if you can just reject the bad? It's foolish (and absolutely paranoid).

One thing that the government can do is provide incentive for people to open their own practice as a doctor/physician. Provide incentives for people to become nurses, etc. They can do that in a number of ways, but I think one way would be through tort reform as Canada implemented. There are many small business doctors/physicians who struggle to pay the malpractice insurance. Obama was actually booed by the AMA when he said he would not push for limits on malpractice jury awards. Go here: Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

First, there are already incentives, especially for doctors to open a practice in an underserved area. Second, it seems to me that you have no knowledge whatsoever on the other differences between Canadian and American doctors. Your article points out the large difference between insurance rates for neurosurgeons between the two countries. It doesn't bother mentioning that American doctors make a ton more money, nor does it mention that the cost of medical school is a few thousand dollars in Canada (compared to $40-60k in the US), nor does it mention the vast differences in lawsuit outcomes. So while it's really nice for you to say "bring down insurance costs", how do you propose that? Tort reform? Hmm... it already appears to be a main part of Obama's plan.

Increasing the number of doctors would help to bring costs down. Tort reform would also tend to increase the number of companies providing malpractice insurance, which would bring these insurance costs down for doctors/physicians as well.

And how to you propose we make more doctors? Furthermore, why in the world would you believe tort reform would do that to the number of malpractice insurance companies? You're unbelievable. Above in that SAME POST you claim that capping the rates that companies can charge doctors will mean fewer companies. Now you say that it will increase them? Get your made up economics straight.

Again, only until we can hold our politicians accountable for lying and we the people come together will we be able to come up with the alternative solutions that will actually work.

Except that you're not providing any alternative solutions at all. You proposed 1) something that already exists, 2) something that is already in Obama's plan, 3) an unsupported method of somehow producing more doctors, and 4) made up economics.

So you think those 4 things will "stop the spiral"? Weak.

 

[Christopher]

It means those are the preventive measures he's focusing on, which have been proven to be cost saving.

You have yet to show a single preventive measure he's proposing that isn't cost saving. You're drawing a poorly formed conclusion based on a generalization while ignoring the details, when the details prove you to be wrong.

Regardless, you have already admitted he lied about it before. Also, you have yet to provide any evidence that what is in Obama’s health care plan will be cost saving overall. My conclusions are based upon much more than his generalizations about preventative health care savings.

I implied that you said Democrats are evil? I think that previous sentence was the first time I've even typed the word "democrats" on this forum (darn there's two now)...

Post # 7 in this thread proves you are wrong. That was where you first made reference to “evil” Democrats.

So, we went with education, it's done nothing, and you want... more... even tho we're concurrently doing more... and it's still not working. And yet again I ask: even if education prevents people from becoming obese, what do you plan on doing with the people who are already obese. No, the government is not trying to force people who are obese to become healthy. The main cost is in treating people who are already obese. We need to deal with their health issues one way or another, and as we're going now, we're only treating symptoms as they arise. First presentation to the doctor: heart attack. Great.

As to you only discussing "lies", does this mean you agree that the value of American lives, regardless of money, is truly the goal behind all of this?

Then how are they going to “help” the obese? They are going to force treatment, right? What’s the difference? Education has "done nothing"?

As I have said before, I think there are many who are attempting to pass health care reform that have good intentions. The problem is that good intentions do not always lead to good results.

And yet again I've stated - even with misrepresentations (which I agree he appears to have done, whether purposely or inadvertently is another discussion), how does that change the solution? You just mentioned a "better solution". OK, we're only going to save 10 million dollars on obesity with his solution - do you have a better one? Does anyone? No... no not at all. Regardless of the overestimate, the problem and solution is still exactly the same.

Because I have already provided the reasons why Obama’s plan is not a good solution, you are just continuing to ignore them.

No, the point is and always will be American lives. The problem is that people like you aren't looking for a solution. You're looking to find fault in minutia which doesn't alter anything. I am not blindly following anyone - that's not how critical thinkers work. What creates a win win for America is understanding the problem, and noting that the proposed solution will still save lives AND save money. Again I ask (since you so conveniently ignored it): where is the loss?

Of course I want a solution, I have already stated that. You are creating a straw man argument (yet again). The loss is that we will have no choice in health care once the government has is running a single payer system. The loss is that we will still not solve the spiraling costs.

Because the new government option is competing in the exact same market with the exact same limitations and no (I repeat, NO) advantage. How do you define "free market competition"?

Free market competition means that the government is not part of the market.

That is not what they tried in Massachusetts (public option had nothing to do with it), and what happened in Massachusetts is not what is being proposed now. Go check your facts and try again.

I didn’t say the public option, did I? Obama’s plan creates the same Health Insurance Exchange system. You need to check your facts and stop making straw man arguments. Here is a source which says that for this part of Obama’s plan (which is a primary part), the Massachusetts’ system has been a proving ground for: In Legislation, New National Health Insurance Exchange Emerges | Online NewsHour | July 23, 2009 | PBS

Massachusetts has proved a testing ground for a concept that could emerge as a centerpiece to national health care reform: a health insurance exchange…

In Massachusetts, analysts are finding that the exchange -- together with the individual mandate requiring almost all residents to carry health insurance -- has certainly increased enrollment: About 97 percent of residents have health insurance. Cost containment, however, has been tougher -- the unexpectedly high costs of the program contributed to a $9 billion shortfall in the state's 2009 and 2010 budgets.

It’s proving to me that it is does not save costs, it actually increases costs.

And herein lies the stupidity. All politicians are... well, politicians. Negating everything they say due to over-exaggerations is just as bad as blindly following them. If you can't be a critical thinker and ascertain whether proposed solutions can stand on their own two feet (regardless of what the politicians are telling you), you shouldn't be talking about those solutions at all.

For example: let's say a small town is having horrible flooding problems, and the town mayor proposes he build a dam on the nearby river because dams save $20 million per year in damages. Now let's say you found out that dams really only save $2 million per year in damages. The politician lied, but the solution is still the best plan. In my mind, I want the dam in my town because I can see past the political garbage and realize the solution is still sound. In your mind, you completely dismiss everything, insisting the person can't be trusted and therefore everything he says is wrong. Meanwhile your basement floods every week.

Intelligence is thinking for yourself about how this helps or hurts.

I have already provided evidence that Obama’s plan does nothing about much of the cost increases and in fact will likely just continue to increase costs more. You are just continuing to ignore it. I have already provided evidence he is lying about his real goal, which is the single payer system.

OK so even tho public option is good, it can transform into something else that's bad, so therefore we shouldn't even have the public option even though it's good. Here's an idea: acknowledge that the public option is good, go with it, and flip out hardcore if the thing you ACTUALLY don't like is ever proposed. Note the trend of ignorant Americans: things you fear, whether real or not, means all progress must stop.

No, the public option is not good because it will do nothing to decrease costs and it will create a single payer system. You’ve still provided nothing to support that it is “good”. I would not call the US transitioning to a single payer system as good "progress". Would you?

That's because the lies of our previous president sent us into an unsubstantiated war, killing millions of people and wasting $9billion+ . OK, now let's look at what happens if we ignore Obama's "lies": the health of the average obese person improves, and $10 million is saved. Yeah... completely equal.

Note you missed mentioning his biggest lies on health care. You know, about the government option Trojan horse. That is the whole problem with what you are saying here. Saving $10 million so that we can go to a single payer system makes no sense, and once again you have yet to provide any credible source which says overall how much Obama’s plan will save. While it may save $10 million on obesity, what will be the additional cost increases as a result of the effects of the entire plan?

If by "explained" you mean "made up economic concepts", than sure. I can similarly "explain" that his plan will make every American a millionaire, and that everyone will ride hovercrafts. Saying something doesn't support it. So either provide a legitimate source that supports your poorly formed supposition, or please stop assuming your explanation in and of itself has any value.

No, I provided evidence. I can give you evidence from Obama’s own words, from Barney Frank’s own words and others. So far you have shown me you will not listen to them anyway. You have ignored much of what I have already provided as sources.
I gave you evidence from the person who was the intellectual architect behind the public option. He is now a political science professor at Berkeley.

Yes, yes I think it is a very very good thing, along with malpractice reform. Again, you "explaining" how it will decrease insurance providers doesn't mean that's what will happen. Provide a source, please. As I see it, nothing will change. Ob/Gyn's get charged the largest premiums because they are sued anytime something is wrong with a baby, regardless of whether it's their fault or not. Malpractice reform + caps = good.

Again, capping costs while not capping risks does not provide a good solution. Obama is not considering capping jury awards.

So you propose every single problem even remotely related to healthcare should be addressed in this bill (which is already way too large) else the bill shouldn't even be considered? That's not only negligent it's immature reasoning. It's hypocritical for you to wallow about how the plan affects the open market, while at the same time complaining that this open market is so bad. You don't get to play both sides.

Regardless, we can deal with Big Pharma at another time. McDonalds makes a higher profit margin than any pharmaceutical company. Again, you're a hypocrite.

No, I’m proposing we address the problems at their source and not by having government become an insurance provider. You are completely missing my point, once again.

In the last post I asked you to point to these technological advancements you speak of. You have yet to do so. Please try again.

You have yet to read the source I provided in the last post. Please try again. Regardless of what “technologies” it describes, it does not change the fact that around ½ of the increase in health care costs are a result of medical advancements. If you still just cannot accept that fact, I can’t help you any further.

I imagine with more people having health insurance, we will at first spend more. But let's remove the ridiculous administrative overhead of private insurers, let's remove the ridiculous malpractice lawsuits, and let's remove the defensive medicine. Let's promote mammogram and colonoscopy (both cost saving). Let's prevent insurance companies from dropping people or making "mistakes" that cost Americans more money.

Yes, you “imagine” it which makes it not based on reality. I find it very hypocritical for you to repeat “provide a source” over and over yet you expect me to believe you because you “imagine” it. How many sources have you provided so far again? A big zero.

An opinion paper from months ago? Yeah, let's go ahead and ignore everything that's happened recently, including the speech of the president himself stating what things are and aren't. But again I ask: if step 1 is good, and step 2 is bad... why not accept 1 and flip out as you are if step 2 gets proposed? Why reject the good in anticipation of the bad, if you can just reject the bad? It's foolish (and absolutely paranoid).

You didn’t really read it, did you? That “opinion” paper was quoting the person responsible for creating the public option plan Obama is using. So, go right ahead and question the person responsible for helping to create the public option. Do you really believe he does not know anything about it?

You are still ignoring that Obama has stated his plan with the public option is to transition to a single payer system, that Barney Frank and others have stated it will lead to the single payer system. Here is yet another source, the Coaltion to Protect Patients’ Rights has said it will lead to the single payer system. All these sources are not just from my “imagination”. The more honest on the left will at least admit their plan. Many others, perhaps like you, have just been fooled into believing it is an option for the long term. Coalition Says Public Health Option Would Lead to Single-Payer System - ArkansasBusiness.com Here is the former President of the AMA on Obama’s plans regarding cost savings:

"There are no incentives to control costs" in the current reform package, said Dr. Donald Palmisano, national spokesperson for the Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights and a former president of the American Medical Association. "None of the current plans will save money, and you'll end up with people not getting care."

Wow, no incentives to control costs. It seems to be more about having complete control. Since you agree that a single payer system is bad, how can you accept Obama’s plan knowing he is just transitioning America’s health care system into a single payer system?

First, there are already incentives, especially for doctors to open a practice in an underserved area. Second, it seems to me that you have no knowledge whatsoever on the other differences between Canadian and American doctors. Your article points out the large difference between insurance rates for neurosurgeons between the two countries. It doesn't bother mentioning that American doctors make a ton more money, nor does it mention that the cost of medical school is a few thousand dollars in Canada (compared to $40-60k in the US), nor does it mention the vast differences in lawsuit outcomes. So while it's really nice for you to say "bring down insurance costs", how do you propose that? Tort reform? Hmm... it already appears to be a main part of Obama's plan.

OK, look at the differences in costs between States which have tort reform and those that do not. The difference is still substantial. Take a look at the article again and you will see how Canada implemented tort reform by capping the risks for malpractice insurers. Obama is only trying to cap costs and expecting insurers to cover doctors with no decrease in risk. I thought progressives were about modeling health care after Canada and Europe. Unless you want to argue that Canada had no reason to cap malparactice awards and they did it just for fun.

And how to you propose we make more doctors? Furthermore, why in the world would you believe tort reform would do that to the number of malpractice insurance companies? You're unbelievable. Above in that SAME POST you claim that capping the rates that companies can charge doctors will mean fewer companies. Now you say that it will increase them? Get your made up economics straight.

As I said, there are many ways to provide incentives to increase the number of doctors, I only provided one. You do not understand how to run a business. Obama’s plan is to cap the amount malpractice insurers can charge. So, they are expected to maintain the same risks yet decrease what they charge for taking those risks. Explain to me how that makes sense for them to stay in business. Obama is attacking the issue from the wrong direction. If he were to cap the amount of jury awards, it would decrease the risk for insurers and they would be able to decrease their premiums and still stay in business. Obama is not in the business of deciding what the dollar value is for the risks insurers face, is he? You are the one making up economics here.

Except that you're not providing any alternative solutions at all. You proposed 1) something that already exists, 2) something that is already in Obama's plan, 3) an unsupported method of somehow producing more doctors, and 4) made up economics.

So you think those 4 things will "stop the spiral"? Weak.

I never said 4 single things will stop the spiral. Let’s see you prove that I did. You’re just using another straw man argument. It seems to be all you have left.

The real truth is that Obama and his supporters, at least those that really understand this plan is a step to a single payer system, do not want any other alternative solutions. They want single payer. You and I both think single payer is bad. So, actually we are on the same side.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Regardless, you have already admitted he lied about it before. Also, you have yet to provide any evidence that what is in Obama’s health care plan will be cost saving overall. My conclusions are based upon much more than his generalizations about preventative health care savings.

What?! Alright let's just say for sake of argument, that Obama has lied about everything, including his birthplace, age, dog's name, and favorite ice cream flavor. How does that make the proposed bill instantly void? You need to be able to interpret ideas independently, and in this case, these efforts are beneficial. You continually claim I haven't pointed out where the plan would save money when I have mentioned things time and time again, including

• malpractice reform reduces defensive medicine costs
• focused preventive medicine to include colonoscopy, flu shots, and mammograms (not all preventive medicine, these specifically)
• forcing private companies to compete with a non-profit
• removing the in-state only insurance options
• reducing administrative overhead costs by using more efficient systems
• making medical records more portable to remove redundancy

It's getting closer to Japan's system, which is clearly leaps and bounds better than Americas, which is similarly not socialist.

Then how are they going to “help” the obese? They are going to force treatment, right? What’s the difference? Education has "done nothing"?

I'm not Obama's personal spokesperson. If you want the details, go do your own homework. My only point on this issue is that you are foolish to dismiss it simply because the potential to save money is not as high as he claimed. But I will say it is also foolish for you to believe the only options to combat obesity include education or forcing treatment. How about better regulating school lunches? Providing incentives for supermarkets in underserved areas so people have better access to fresh foods? How about removing trans fats? I don't know what he proposed, but your complaint on how much it will help combined with your narrow-mindedness on how it can help speaks more of a pre-conceived conclusion being met than critical thinking.

Because I have already provided the reasons why Obama’s plan is not a good solution, you are just continuing to ignore them.

Oh? Restate them again in one place for me. Show me how the average American will have worse health under his plan. List out the reasons for me.

Of course I want a solution, I have already stated that. You are creating a straw man argument (yet again). The loss is that we will have no choice in health care once the government has is running a single payer system. The loss is that we will still not solve the spiraling costs.

But the government isn't PROPOSING a single payer system. At all. Your paranoia seems to know no bounds. If such a system is proposed in the future, by all means shoot it down. But until you actually provide solutions as to how it can help (no, the ones you previously provided don't accomplish that goal), you are doing nothing but complaining about change.

Free market competition means that the government is not part of the market.

What economics class did you learn that from? Show me any source which requires that no unsubidized government service can exist can exist in a free market. Don't confuse "government service" with "government price regulation". Yet again it looks like you are fabricating economics to suit your purpose.

I didn’t say the public option, did I? Obama’s plan creates the same Health Insurance Exchange system. You need to check your facts and stop making straw man arguments. Here is a source which says that for this part of Obama’s plan (which is a primary part), the Massachusetts’ system has been a proving ground for: In Legislation, New National Health Insurance Exchange Emerges | Online NewsHour | July 23, 2009 | PBS

You do realize the link you just provided completely rejects the premise of your point, right? It shows how that service in MA was able to provide people with more comprehensive plans for smaller deductibles. MA failed, exactly as your article pointed out, but not because the exchange existed. You need to read each sentence on its own:
"In Massachusetts, analysts are finding that the exchange -- together with the individual mandate requiring almost all residents to carry health insurance -- has certainly increased enrollment: About 97 percent of residents have health insurance."
this is a good thing.

"Cost containment, however, has been tougher -- the unexpectedly high costs of the program contributed to a $9 billion shortfall in the state's 2009 and 2010 budgets."
That "program" they're talking about refers to everything happening in MA. Let's see what your article says about what could come just from a good exchange:
"Proponents of a strong health insurance exchange say that structured properly, an exchange could help stimulate competition among insurers, cut costs and increase enrollment in insurance plans."

So again to be clear:
all changes in MA = increase cost
exchange alone to people = decreased cost
proposed exchange = decreased cost
Yes, MA still failed, but again you seem to have trouble separating distinct but linked issues.

I would not call the US transitioning to a single payer system as good "progress". Would you?

No, I wouldn't. If such a system is ever proposed, I'll let you flip out hardcore. Until then, calm down and stop being so paranoid about super secret evil conspiracy theories.

You're the type of person who can't go to those timeshare presentations because "they will make me buy something I don't want!". Sit through the presentation, take home the free gift that they're offering, and LEAVE!

Note you missed mentioning his biggest lies on health care. You know, about the government option Trojan horse. That is the whole problem with what you are saying here. Saving $10 million so that we can go to a single payer system makes no sense, and once again you have yet to provide any credible source which says overall how much Obama’s plan will save. While it may save $10 million on obesity, what will be the additional cost increases as a result of the effects of the entire plan?

And more paranoia...

No, I provided evidence. I can give you evidence from Obama’s own words, from Barney Frank’s own words and others. So far you have shown me you will not listen to them anyway. You have ignored much of what I have already provided as sources.
I gave you evidence from the person who was the intellectual architect behind the public option. He is now a political science professor at Berkeley.

...and more paranoia...

Again, capping costs while not capping risks does not provide a good solution. Obama is not considering capping jury awards.

Except the entire goal is to demolish most of the "risks" that are currently being used for lawsuits today. You don't seem to understand what the malpractice reform is all about...

No, I’m proposing we address the problems at their source and not by having government become an insurance provider. You are completely missing my point, once again.

And how does the government providing a public option preclude you from doing just that? And how do you plan to address the problems at their source? You have yet to provide them. You say you are providing them, but... I have yet to see it. Perhaps a bullet format would help you?

You have yet to read the source I provided in the last post. Please try again. Regardless of what “technologies” it describes, it does not change the fact that around ½ of the increase in health care costs are a result of medical advancements. If you still just cannot accept that fact, I can’t help you any further.

I, see when I was looking for a source, I tend to completely ignore... other posts in a forum. So, I went back and looked at this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ainst-the-current-healthcare-reform-bill.html

First: link to the original article, cuz it looks like you got this from wikipedia...

"In 2006, the United States accounted for the three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. "
medical advancements does NOT comprise all of biotech. You should probably go look up what biotech is.

OK so that brings us to this gem:
"About half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology"
Are you joking? This is the basis of your claim? In the past "several decades", we have discovered DNA, discovered and expanded antibiotics, created new innovative surgical techniques, and increased the American life span by about a decade.

Again, opponents to this bill seem to forget the goal is HEALTH. Not cost. HEALTH. If you want to save cost, letting everyone die young will accomplish that.

You didn’t really read it, did you? That “opinion” paper was quoting the person responsible for creating the public option plan Obama is using. So, go right ahead and question the person responsible for helping to create the public option. Do you really believe he does not know anything about it?

You are still ignoring that Obama has stated his plan with the public option is to transition to a single payer system, that Barney Frank and others have stated it will lead to the single payer system. Here is yet another source, the Coaltion to Protect Patients’ Rights has said it will lead to the single payer system. All these sources are not just from my “imagination”. The more honest on the left will at least admit their plan. Many others, perhaps like you, have just been fooled into believing it is an option for the long term. Coalition Says Public Health Option Would Lead to Single-Payer System - ArkansasBusiness.com Here is the former President of the AMA on Obama’s plans regarding cost savings:



Wow, no incentives to control costs. It seems to be more about having complete control. Since you agree that a single payer system is bad, how can you accept Obama’s plan knowing he is just transitioning America’s health care system into a single payer system?

...and more paranoia...

OK, look at the differences in costs between States which have tort reform and those that do not. The difference is still substantial. Take a look at the article again and you will see how Canada implemented tort reform by capping the risks for malpractice insurers. Obama is only trying to cap costs and expecting insurers to cover doctors with no decrease in risk.

That's actually false. Straight from the Obama website: "Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine."

As I said: already part of the plan. You want malpractice reform, he does. What's the problem here? Oh right... you don't believe him.

As I said, there are many ways to provide incentives to increase the number of doctors, I only provided one. You do not understand how to run a business.

You sure about that? Perhaps you should rethink that one.

Obama’s plan is to cap the amount malpractice insurers can charge. So, they are expected to maintain the same risks yet decrease what they charge for taking those risks.

Once again you seem either incapable of understanding the malpractice reform he's proposing, or again being so paranoid as to not believe it (and yet you have no problem believing all the things you don't like will definitely come true...). By the way, can you be a dear and link me to any reputable source that talks about capping malpractice rates?

I never said 4 single things will stop the spiral. Let’s see you prove that I did. You’re just using another straw man argument. It seems to be all you have left.

Ah you're right. What you *did* do was provide 4 useless solutions. Well done. Now, where are the ones that will "attack the source of the problem", cut costs, and improve health? You're zero for four thusfar.

The real truth is that Obama and his supporters, at least those that really understand this plan is a step to a single payer system

do I really need to keep calling you on it? Maybe just this to signify: P

Why is it that you think some of the most highly educated and trained medical professionals in the country, who are closest to this issue support a public option?

 

[trueblue]

I don't have the patience to read either side of your extensive arguments, but just to point out something that caught my eye in scrolling:

If some of the most highly educated and trained medical professionals in the country support a public option, and they do, that also means that some of the most highly educated and trained medical professionals in the country do not support a public option.

Thus the debate.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

yes, about 25% do not. 75% do.

and you're right on that, but regardless, no one is proposing a single payer system, which most people do not like. Despite that fact, Christopher's main complaint is about a single payer system, even tho it's not on the table...

 

[HUGGY]

Regardless, you have already admitted he lied about it before. Also, you have yet to provide any evidence that what is in Obama’s health care plan will be cost saving overall. My conclusions are based upon much more than his generalizations about preventative health care savings.

What?! Alright let's just say for sake of argument, that Obama has lied about everything, including his birthplace, age, dog's name, and favorite ice cream flavor. How does that make the proposed bill instantly void? You need to be able to interpret ideas independently, and in this case, these efforts are beneficial. You continually claim I haven't pointed out where the plan would save money when I have mentioned things time and time again, including

• malpractice reform reduces defensive medicine costs
• focused preventive medicine to include colonoscopy, flu shots, and mammograms (not all preventive medicine, these specifically)
• forcing private companies to compete with a non-profit
• removing the in-state only insurance options
• reducing administrative overhead costs by using more efficient systems
• making medical records more portable to remove redundancy

It's getting closer to Japan's system, which is clearly leaps and bounds better than Americas, which is similarly not socialist.

Then how are they going to “help” the obese? They are going to force treatment, right? What’s the difference? Education has "done nothing"?

I'm not Obama's personal spokesperson. If you want the details, go do your own homework. My only point on this issue is that you are foolish to dismiss it simply because the potential to save money is not as high as he claimed. But I will say it is also foolish for you to believe the only options to combat obesity include education or forcing treatment. How about better regulating school lunches? Providing incentives for supermarkets in underserved areas so people have better access to fresh foods? How about removing trans fats? I don't know what he proposed, but your complaint on how much it will help combined with your narrow-mindedness on how it can help speaks more of a pre-conceived conclusion being met than critical thinking.

Oh? Restate them again in one place for me. Show me how the average American will have worse health under his plan. List out the reasons for me.

But the government isn't PROPOSING a single payer system. At all. Your paranoia seems to know no bounds. If such a system is proposed in the future, by all means shoot it down. But until you actually provide solutions as to how it can help (no, the ones you previously provided don't accomplish that goal), you are doing nothing but complaining about change.

What economics class did you learn that from? Show me any source which requires that no unsubidized government service can exist can exist in a free market. Don't confuse "government service" with "government price regulation". Yet again it looks like you are fabricating economics to suit your purpose.

You do realize the link you just provided completely rejects the premise of your point, right? It shows how that service in MA was able to provide people with more comprehensive plans for smaller deductibles. MA failed, exactly as your article pointed out, but not because the exchange existed. You need to read each sentence on its own:
"In Massachusetts, analysts are finding that the exchange -- together with the individual mandate requiring almost all residents to carry health insurance -- has certainly increased enrollment: About 97 percent of residents have health insurance."
this is a good thing.

"Cost containment, however, has been tougher -- the unexpectedly high costs of the program contributed to a $9 billion shortfall in the state's 2009 and 2010 budgets."
That "program" they're talking about refers to everything happening in MA. Let's see what your article says about what could come just from a good exchange:
"Proponents of a strong health insurance exchange say that structured properly, an exchange could help stimulate competition among insurers, cut costs and increase enrollment in insurance plans."

So again to be clear:
all changes in MA = increase cost
exchange alone to people = decreased cost
proposed exchange = decreased cost
Yes, MA still failed, but again you seem to have trouble separating distinct but linked issues.

No, I wouldn't. If such a system is ever proposed, I'll let you flip out hardcore. Until then, calm down and stop being so paranoid about super secret evil conspiracy theories.

You're the type of person who can't go to those timeshare presentations because "they will make me buy something I don't want!". Sit through the presentation, take home the free gift that they're offering, and LEAVE!

And more paranoia...

...and more paranoia...

Except the entire goal is to demolish most of the "risks" that are currently being used for lawsuits today. You don't seem to understand what the malpractice reform is all about...

And how does the government providing a public option preclude you from doing just that? And how do you plan to address the problems at their source? You have yet to provide them. You say you are providing them, but... I have yet to see it. Perhaps a bullet format would help you?

I, see when I was looking for a source, I tend to completely ignore... other posts in a forum. So, I went back and looked at this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ainst-the-current-healthcare-reform-bill.html

First: link to the original article, cuz it looks like you got this from wikipedia...

"In 2006, the United States accounted for the three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. "
medical advancements does NOT comprise biotech. You should probably go look up what biotech is.

OK so that brings us to this gem:
"About half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology"
Are you joking? This is the basis of your claim? In the past "several decades", we have discovered DNA, discovered and expanded antibiotics, created new innovative surgical techniques, and increased the American life span by about a decade.

Again, opponents to this bill seem to forget the goal is HEALTH. Not cost. HEALTH. If you want to save cost, letting everyone die young will accomplish that.


...and more paranoia...


That's actually false. Straight from the Obama website: "Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine."

As I said: already part of the plan. You want malpractice reform, he does. What's the problem here? Oh right... you don't believe him.

You sure about that? Perhaps you should rethink that one.

Once again you seem either incapable of understanding the malpractice reform he's proposing, or again being so paranoid as to not believe it (and yet you have no problem believing all the things you don't like will definitely come true...). By the way, can you be a dear and link me to any reputable source that talks about capping malpractice rates?

I never said 4 single things will stop the spiral. Let’s see you prove that I did. You’re just using another straw man argument. It seems to be all you have left.

Ah you're right. What you *did* do was provide 4 useless solutions. Well done. Now, where are the ones that will "attack the source of the problem", cut costs, and improve health? You're zero for four thusfar.

The real truth is that Obama and his supporters, at least those that really understand this plan is a step to a single payer system

do I really need to keep calling you on it? Maybe just this to signify: P

Why is it that you think some of the most highly educated and trained medical professionals in the country, who are closest to this issue support a public option?

You have more patience than I. I believe is is a waste of time trying to convince some of these morons to think...actually put aside thier talking points and look at a subject clearly and objectively. Good luck.

 

[trueblue]

So am I right when I read "putting aside their talking points and looking at a subject clearly and objectively" and interpret that to mean that they simply don't agree with you?

I know there are some parrots on here, but that's generally what people mean when they use words like "clearly", "objectively", and "open-minded".... they mean "see things differently than I do" or "don't agree with my philosophies or beliefs".

Just checking.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

if that question is to me (i don't quite know as I don't use language like you quoted and can't find that quote in this thread but will assume you're paraphrasing):

my point is that there are parrots (as you say), but the bigger problem is the people who seem incapable of separating ideas. Not "you disagree with me", but "you won't look at part 2 through 99 cuz you disagree with part 1". Example: I disagree with the way some things have been exaggerated as well, but I ignore the hype and look towards the facts. Others can't see past the hype, and so don't argue the underlying facts, but dismiss the product based on the wrapping.

In other threads, this can be seen as xenophobic people who dislike illegal immigration flipping out at the thought that an illegal immigrant might purchase their own health care. They are independent topics.

 

[trueblue]

if that question is to me (i don't quite know as I don't use language like you quoted and can't find that quote in this thread but will assume you're paraphrasing):

my point is that there are parrots (as you say), but the bigger problem is the people who seem incapable of separating ideas. Not "you disagree with me", but "you won't look at part 2 through 99 cuz you disagree with part 1". Example: I disagree with the way some things have been exaggerated as well, but I ignore the hype and look towards the facts. Others can't see past the hype, and so don't argue the underlying facts, but dismiss the product based on the wrapping.

In other threads, this can be seen as xenophobic people who dislike illegal immigration flipping out at the thought that an illegal immigrant might purchase their own health care. They are independent topics.

I think I directed my comment at Huggy, but I agree with what you say here. I just get suspicious when people start referring to a group of people as "they" or "them" and then accuse close-mindedness, subjectivity and unclearness. That's usually a dead giveaway that the person giving the opinion is guilty of everything they accuse the other to be.

It's not always so. But usually that's a person that can't come away from their talking points. At least not without resulting to name calling and ludicrous accusations.