Want To See What National Healthcare Will Look Like?

[auditor0007]

TennCare is almost undistinguishable from the health care system currently in the House. Perhaps I misunderstood your post but you seem to be under the assumption that HR3200 would put EVERYONE on the public option immediately. It wouldn't. It would function just as TennCare did. It would also fail as TennCare did.

No I am not under the assumption that everyone would be put on the public plan. What I am saying is that programs such as TennCare are paid for, in the most part, from tax dollars that come from those who do not use the program. In order for such a program to be effective and solvent, the majority of funding must come from those using the program which would happen in great part as those who choose to use the public option will pay through employer deductions (the 8% of payroll levy) and premiums paid by the users of the program.

If however, the beneficiaries of the public option are not paying and the only ones paying are those who are already insured through private insurance, then of course the funding will not be there and it will turn into one big disaster.

Those that participated in TennCare that would not have qualified for Medicaid were charged premiums based on income and TennCare didn't cover seniors that qualified for Medicare. The program simply was unworkable. If the proposal that Obama is hyping is fundamentally different, please show me how.

Honestly I don't know enough about the program. How much were the premiums and who were those covered? What was the average age of the beneficiaries of the program? If the program only had enough funding to spend $2000 per person per year, and the cost in the US is $7900 per person per year, then of course it would have been a disaster. Again, I don't know the real numbers. Maybe you could make them available?

 

[Vast LWC]

Many people may be satisfied with their healthcare, now, but here are some interesting figures:

"Milliman Inc., an employee benefits consulting firm, publishes annually its Milliman Medical Index on the total health spending by or for a typical American family of four with private health insurance. The index totals the family's out-of-pocket spending for health care plus the contribution employers and employees make to that family's job-related health insurance coverage.

Since 2005, the index has grown at an average annual compound rate of 8.4 percent. Suppose we make it 8 percent for the coming decade. Then today's $16,700 will have grown to slightly over $36,000 by 2019.

Economists are convinced that this $36,000 would come virtually all out of the financial hides of employees, even if the employer pretended to be paying, say, 80 percent of the employment-based health insurance premiums."

Source for statistics:

http://www.milliman.com/expertise/healthcare/products-tools/mmi/pdfs/milliman-medical-index-2009.pdf

Souruce for analysis:

Commentary: Frightening future if health reform fails - CNN.com

 

[Vast LWC]

$36,000 a year for a family of four????

That's clearly insane. I know I won't be able to afford it, and I make quite a nice salary, thank you very much.

 

[veritas]

2. The costs of healthcare have been going down, not up.

2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

And while heathcare is improving the lives of Americans, it is 'education' that is spinning out of control, and not fulfilling its promise.

I can't begin to tell you how disappointing you have turned out to be.

round file.

 

[Maple]

it is failing as well. I don't understand why anyone would push this plan, it has failed in Canada, the canadians are now trying to get back to a private system, yet our politicians are still pushing failed agendas.


I guess they don't learn from other's mistakes.

 

[veritas]

it is failing as well. I don't understand why anyone would push this plan, it has failed in Canada, the canadians are now trying to get back to a private system, yet our politicians are still pushing failed agendas.


I guess they don't learn from other's mistakes.

Inaccurate and your spelling of Taxachusetts..........yikes.


I'm gonna need a dumpster. The round file is overflowing.

 

[Vast LWC]

The costs of healthcare have been going down, not up.

2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

Well, that's not really correct.

The total dollar increases have actually been staying the same, or rising slightly, but because the TOTAL is increasing, the percentage gain is decreasing.

I mean, if you had 10 dollars and someone gave you 2 dollars, you would have a 20% increase. If someone gave you another 2 dollars it would be a 16.6% increase, and so on.

Be that as it may, according to projections, the average family of four will still have a $36,000 yearly medical bill by the year 2019.

 

[Vast LWC]

it is failing as well. I don't understand why anyone would push this plan, it has failed in Canada,

No it hasn't.

the canadians are now trying to get back to a private system,

and no, they aren't

yet our politicians are still pushing failed agendas.

I guess they don't learn from other's mistakes.

See the discussion on the subject in the other thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-canadian-fight-for-universal-healthcare.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well let us start with the fact that nearly everyone pays taxes. Granted, only 50% pay federal income tax. However, anyone who works pays SS and Medicare tax. Along with this, there are sales and use taxes, liquor and tobacco taxes, gasoline taxes, and a plethora of other taxes. Even the working poor pay around 20% of their earnings in these taxes.

Secondly, the idea that $49 billion will cover the uninsured is ludicrous. $49 billion might cover 1 million people. I can assure you there are a hell lot more than 1 million uninsured in this country.

I don't mind debating the pros and cons of this issue, but I get tired of those who continue to defend the system as it is, knowing full well that it is going to bankrupt the entire country, including the wealthy, within the next twenty or so years.

And I love the stupid arguments from people who say they shouldn't be forced to pay for health insurance if they don't want or need it because they are healthy. And then if they get sick, we all end up paying for it. But hey, it's there right. If you willingly choose not to insure yourself and have the ability, then I think if you get sick, they should just let you die.

But in our system, if you are sick, insurance companies will find any way possible to remove you from the system so they don't have to pay for your care. And then you can't get coverage even if you are willing to pay for it, or they make it so expensive, only the truly wealthy can afford it. And all the while, the costs continue to soar. It won't be long and we will be spending 30% of GDP on healthcare, and eventually it will top 40%. And all we get is arguments of how this is so wonderful?

All I can do is laugh, because the US will eventually end up having worse healthcare than the rest of the world as we will no longer be able to afford it period. All I hear is how people from other countries come to the US for healthcare. Well the fact is that more and more Americans are going to India and Taiwan or other countries for their medical care because they can't afford it here, even with insurance in many cases. And those numbers are only going to increase dramatically in the future.

Up til' now I considered you worthy as some sort of counter-expert.

But your inability to do simple math obviates any such thought.

"... $49 billion might cover 1 million people..."????

Don't you realize that you are claiming $50 thousand dollars per person to cover these uninsured?

And that is if there are 50 Million of them, and there are only about 8 to 15 million, so you must be budgeting about $200,000 per!!!!

What is wrong with you???

"...but I get tired of those who continue to defend the system as it is, knowing full well that it is going to bankrupt the entire country,..."

You are a compendium of misinformation and have clearly become one who believes in feeling rather than knowing.

1. The vast majority are satisfied with their healthcare.
"Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

2. The costs of healthcare have been going down, not up.

2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

And while heathcare is improving the lives of Americans, it is 'education' that is spinning out of control, and not fulfilling its promise.

I can't begin to tell you how disappointing you have turned out to be.

Yes PC, that is exactly what I am saying. It will cost $50,000 per person over the ten year period we are discussing. The cost of $1 trillion being discussed is over the next ten years, not for one year. So when you use your figure of $49 billion, I had to assume you were talking about the duration of the entire projection and not just one year. In reality, it will probably cost a bit more considering we are currently spending $7900 per year per person. But hopefully, some cost savings will be realized to reduce that number under the proposed program.

Now, I think we should address your statement that the cost of healthcare has been going down over the last few years. How can anyone take you seriously when you make such an absurd statement? Maybe you meant to say that spending increases are declining, but even that is nothing to brag about. That is like saying that our deficit spending will begin to decrease in a few years (may or may not happen), but we will still be adding to the deficit, just as healthcare costs are rising at more than double the rate of inflation currently and have been for the last decade.

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

"The CBO is actually being kind to the would-be reformers. Its analysis likely understates—by at least $1 trillion—the true costs of expanding health coverage as current Democratic legislation contemplates. Over the last few months, my colleagues and I at the consulting firm Health Systems Innovations have provided cost estimates of health-care reform to both Republican and Democratic members of Congress, and we’ve posted these estimates on our website as well. We believe that the Democratic bills currently under consideration in the House and Senate would cost $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion, respectively—much higher than CBO’s figures."
Another Trillion? by Stephen T. Parente, City Journal 5 August 2009

The better model for ObamaCare is the original estimate for Medicare spending when it was passed in 1965, and what has happened since.

"That year, Congressional actuaries (CBO wasn’t around then) expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion in 1970. In 1969, that estimate was pushed to $5 billion, and it really came in at $6.8 billion. House Ways and Means analysts estimated in 1967 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. They were off by a factor of 10—actual spending was $110 billion—even as its benefits coverage failed to keep pace with standards in the private market. Medicare spending in the first nine months of this fiscal year is $314 billion and growing by 10%. Some of this historical error is due to 1970s-era inflation, as well as advancements in care and technology. But Democrats also clearly underestimated—or lowballed—the public’s appetite for “free” health care. "
Cost of ObamaCare Higher than Expected - WSJ.com

But do not overlook the sleight of hand of the administration:
They have no intention or belief that the plan will have anything but a deleterious effect on budget and deficits.

Proof?

None of these accepted and proven cost-cutting measures are inclued:

1. Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which alone adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

2. Tort reform:
The number of U.S. malpractice payments in 2008 was the lowest since creation of the federal National Practitioner Data Bank, which has tracked payments since 1990. And the average payment — about $326,000 — was the smallest in a decade.

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

So my conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!
Once we have tort reform, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)


Which would not reduce costs?

Which would cause the negative backlash that ObamaCare has generated?

To which would you object if they were part of healthcare?

 

[Vast LWC]

"The CBO is actually being kind to the would-be reformers. Its analysis likely understates—by at least $1 trillion—the true costs of expanding health coverage as current Democratic legislation contemplates. Over the last few months, my colleagues and I at the consulting firm Health Systems Innovations have provided cost estimates of health-care reform to both Republican and Democratic members of Congress, and we’ve posted these estimates on our website as well. We believe that the Democratic bills currently under consideration in the House and Senate would cost $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion, respectively—much higher than CBO’s figures."
Another Trillion? by Stephen T. Parente, City Journal 5 August 2009

Based on an opinion piece written by one Stephen T Parente, who works directly for HSI Network Insurance group.

Thanks, but I think I'll take his advice with a large grain of salt.

The better model for ObamaCare is the original estimate for Medicare spending when it was passed in 1965, and what has happened since.

"That year, Congressional actuaries (CBO wasn’t around then) expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion in 1970. In 1969, that estimate was pushed to $5 billion, and it really came in at $6.8 billion. House Ways and Means analysts estimated in 1967 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. They were off by a factor of 10—actual spending was $110 billion—even as its benefits coverage failed to keep pace with standards in the private market. Medicare spending in the first nine months of this fiscal year is $314 billion and growing by 10%. Some of this historical error is due to 1970s-era inflation, as well as advancements in care and technology. But Democrats also clearly underestimated—or lowballed—the public’s appetite for “free” health care. "
Cost of ObamaCare Higher than Expected - WSJ.com

An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, a paper known for it's unbiased reporting and unbelievably biased opinion pieces, now owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Not to mention the fact that the cost of private health care has risen faster than the cost of medicare, per patient.

 

[Zoom-boing]

"The CBO is actually being kind to the would-be reformers. Its analysis likely understates—by at least $1 trillion—the true costs of expanding health coverage as current Democratic legislation contemplates. Over the last few months, my colleagues and I at the consulting firm Health Systems Innovations have provided cost estimates of health-care reform to both Republican and Democratic members of Congress, and we’ve posted these estimates on our website as well. We believe that the Democratic bills currently under consideration in the House and Senate would cost $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion, respectively—much higher than CBO’s figures."
Another Trillion? by Stephen T. Parente, City Journal 5 August 2009

Based on an opinion piece written by one Stephen T Parente, who works directly for HSI Network Insurance group.

Thanks, but I think I'll take his advice with a large grain of salt.

The better model for ObamaCare is the original estimate for Medicare spending when it was passed in 1965, and what has happened since.

"That year, Congressional actuaries (CBO wasn’t around then) expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion in 1970. In 1969, that estimate was pushed to $5 billion, and it really came in at $6.8 billion. House Ways and Means analysts estimated in 1967 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. They were off by a factor of 10—actual spending was $110 billion—even as its benefits coverage failed to keep pace with standards in the private market. Medicare spending in the first nine months of this fiscal year is $314 billion and growing by 10%. Some of this historical error is due to 1970s-era inflation, as well as advancements in care and technology. But Democrats also clearly underestimated—or lowballed—the public’s appetite for “free” health care. "
Cost of ObamaCare Higher than Expected - WSJ.com

An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, a paper known for it's unbiased reporting and unbelievably biased opinion pieces, now owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Not to mention the fact that the cost of private health care has risen faster than the cost of medicare, per patient.

Why don't you answer her last three questions instead of dodging with the old 'your sources are biased' line?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The CBO is actually being kind to the would-be reformers. Its analysis likely understates—by at least $1 trillion—the true costs of expanding health coverage as current Democratic legislation contemplates. Over the last few months, my colleagues and I at the consulting firm Health Systems Innovations have provided cost estimates of health-care reform to both Republican and Democratic members of Congress, and we’ve posted these estimates on our website as well. We believe that the Democratic bills currently under consideration in the House and Senate would cost $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion, respectively—much higher than CBO’s figures."
Another Trillion? by Stephen T. Parente, City Journal 5 August 2009

Based on an opinion piece written by one Stephen T Parente, who works directly for HSI Network Insurance group.

Thanks, but I think I'll take his advice with a large grain of salt.

The better model for ObamaCare is the original estimate for Medicare spending when it was passed in 1965, and what has happened since.

"That year, Congressional actuaries (CBO wasn’t around then) expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion in 1970. In 1969, that estimate was pushed to $5 billion, and it really came in at $6.8 billion. House Ways and Means analysts estimated in 1967 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. They were off by a factor of 10—actual spending was $110 billion—even as its benefits coverage failed to keep pace with standards in the private market. Medicare spending in the first nine months of this fiscal year is $314 billion and growing by 10%. Some of this historical error is due to 1970s-era inflation, as well as advancements in care and technology. But Democrats also clearly underestimated—or lowballed—the public’s appetite for “free” health care. "
Cost of ObamaCare Higher than Expected - WSJ.com

An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, a paper known for it's unbiased reporting and unbelievably biased opinion pieces, now owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Not to mention the fact that the cost of private health care has risen faster than the cost of medicare, per patient.

Here is the (apocryphal) Libral Libretto. I provide it so you don't have to whip out your copy.

I noticed that when stumped, you use rule #2 as default.


1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”
b. Claim the public has been ‘brainwashed,’ and politicians bought.

4. Be sure to you carry your ‘concern’ as though it was a hypodermic needle, but one filled with poison. Furrow your brow, look vaguely sad, (think Leon Panetta) but watch for opportunities to stab, to use abusive language, using your (imagined) superiority to allow you to do violence to the reputation of those who have alternative views.
a. Hey, there is nothing wrong with attacking personal traits, real or imagined. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
i. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it."

5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “ I’m only interested in discourse.”

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’

7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
a. Claim to idolize despots and tyrants. But always state how their people love them.
b. The corollary applies: never support traditional American values. Important terms: imperialist, oppressor
c. Deny atrocities by tyrants. If not possible, explain they were necessary. Finally, justify them, and, show how America was ultimately at fault.
d. Support government officials and appointees.
I. This does not apply to uniformed government employees such as police or military.

8. Remember to spend appropriate time in front of the mirror practicing outrage, shock, and disbelief, or, and best, a sarcastic sneer.

9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them.

10. Remember the gullible and grumbling always identify with vague terms like ‘hope’ ‘change’ ‘new’ ‘empathy’ and ‘better.’

 

[Jay Canuck]

here's how it looks now.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yeah,

"There you go again", right? Nice dodge.

When I present data, I present them from sources that are not opinion pieces, or if they are opinion, I present supporting data from the opinion writer's source.

Quoting an opinion piece as a source, especially from an opinion column that is known to be biased in one way or another, is just as valid as quoting another poster as a source.

In other words, it's not valid at all.

That's not "liberal" that's "factual".

Please, spare me your silly accusations about how it's my "liberal bias" that makes me ask for non-opinion sources. That's just unconstructive.

If you post an opinion column, then post that writers sources, or be prepared to have "bullshit" called upon your conclusions.

Why don't you answer her last three questions instead of dodging with the old 'your sources are biased' line?

If I found her first two sources to be completely inadequate, why would I follow the rest of the line of reasoning to it's conclusion?

 

[keee keee]

It will be like going to the DMV or the Post office for your Health care!!! Think of the great job the Government does at educating our children. This Obama deathcare will be worse!!!! Anything the government does is incompetant, and overpriced!!! Full of waste and coruption!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah,

"There you go again", right? Nice dodge.

When I present data, I present them from sources that are not opinion pieces, or if they are opinion, I present supporting data from the opinion writer's source.

Quoting an opinion piece as a source, especially from an opinion column that is known to be biased in one way or another, is just as valid as quoting another poster as a source.

In other words, it's not valid at all.

That's not "liberal" that's "factual".

Please, spare me your silly accusations about how it's my "liberal bias" that makes me ask for non-opinion sources. That's just unconstructive.

If you post an opinion column, then post that writers sources, or be prepared to have "bullshit" called upon your conclusions.

Why don't you answer her last three questions instead of dodging with the old 'your sources are biased' line?

If I found her first two sources to be completely inadequate, why would I follow the rest of the line of reasoning to it's conclusion?

It seems that it is much easier to use the ploy then to show fault with the statements. Would 'easy' be your middle name?

I listed eight proposals, none of which you were equipped to dispute.

So, if these eight are all cost-cutting, it cuts the legs out from under ObamaCare, and its supporters.

So why, then, is the lib Congress proposing dubious plans, when more efficacious are around?

Look at the moderates withdrawing support from this administration and think of the axiom of our great first Republican President:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

It appears obvious to which group you belong.

 

[Vanquish]

Can I just say I'm in love with Political Chic's avatar. Cuthbert + Supergirl = win

 

[Luissa]

You don't need to look any farther than Tennessee. It was a disaster. It's amazing that anyone can't see what happened in one state and realize that it would be an even worse nightmare to try this nation wide.
****************************************************

July 22, 2009
Lessons For Health Care Reform
By Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe
Tennessee was home to a failed attempt at universal single payer care, and has lessons to teach a President who has promised that in pursuing his goal of universal health care, he will learn from the policy failures of the past. In 1994 Tennessee implemented managed care in its Medicaid program, creating a system known as TennCare. The objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.
The genesis of TennCare has many parallels to the situation in which we find ourselves today. It was a public option plan designed to save money and expand coverage. In the early 1990s, Tennessee was facing rising costs in its Medicaid program. TennCare was designed to replace Mediaid with managed care and use the promised savings to expand coverage. By 1998, TennCare swelled to cover 1.2 million people. Private business dropped coverage for employees and forced them onto state rolls. By 2002 enrollment had swelled to 1.4 million people and forced Tennessee's Governor to raise taxes and ultimately propose an entirely new state income tax to cover the unforeseen costs. Governor Bredesen was ultimately forced to dramatically restructure a program he has since called "a disaster". By 2006 Bredesen had disenrolled nearly 200,000 people and slashed benefits.





RealClearPolitics - Lessons For Health Care Reform

single payer is different then having private and public paying for it. Why don't you look at French medical care and you will get a better model to look at because that is the way we are going. We are not modeling our health care after Canada or Tennesse.

 

[keee keee]

Will sink like a lead zepplin.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Vel you could have summed it up much easier.

see