The Way Forward: Repeal ObamaCare
- Thread starter g5000
- Start date
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
Just stupid. Stupid reply to a thoughtful post. Try harder.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Yes, yes your posts are....Try coloring books and Legos.
The dangers of relying on a source from January 2010. This changed the following month, prior to passage.
You took the time to link to the text of the legislation, but apparently not the time to consult it.
Ah yes, the "deception" of Medicare spending growth slowing.
Growth In Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Continues To Hit Historic Lows
CBO | How Have CBO's Projections of Spending for Medicare and Medicaid Changed Since the August 2012 Baseline?
The Changing Politics of Medicare & Medicaid Finance - Health Stew - Boston.com
Don't Look Now, but Our Medicare Spending Projections Are Plummeting - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic
Medicare spending growth is turning out to be lower than the ACA's authors expected, not higher.
From the CBO blog, literally eight days ago: CBO | CBO's Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act's Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time
The Estimated Budgetary Impact of the ACAÂ’s Coverage Provisions Has Changed Little on a Year-by-Year Basis Since March 2010
When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCTÂ’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACAÂ’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACAÂ’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.
The reason why the cost of Medicare and Medicaid spending is going down is largely due to every state moving those enrolled in these programs to capitated risk plans. People that end up on Medicare and Medicaid is what is costing the system so much in healthcare expenses. These people are either disabled, elderly who have 5 or more chronic conditions.
Currently every state is moving this expensive population into a capitated risk plan where providers of care will get a fixed amount per month per member that is assigned to them.
This forces the provider to reduce cost in order for the provider to make a profit.
They are also not going to reimburse hospitals if any patients have to be readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Too many unnecessary tests and increases in readmissions clearly indicated the providers of care were taking advantage of the system.
Personally, I think that capitated plans are evil as they can produce neglect of care for the member in the name of profit. The industry has stated they have improved their quality of care, time will tell how well this will work out.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,680
- 90,496
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #85
If the government intervened and participated in the food market the same way it does in the healthcare market, you would see the price of food rise and thus more starving people.
To repeat, the government has taken control of healthcare, and tilted the field heavily in its favor against all competitors, and has entrenched the very things which are causing healthcare costs to rise. It is fascinating to observe fools like yourself not only defending this, but calling for even more government involvement which will screw things up even more!
The very things you are whining about are caused by the government's meddling.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #86
1) So, you are saying that a unique American practice is spending more on health care than necessary in order to get rid of excess money?
2) Most all other developed countries provide publically funded universal health care for half of our cost and with better measurable outcomes.
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
The government has taken control of healthcare? What are you, a Rush listener?
You are not equipped to go on. Greenbeard put you in your place.
And yet, financial holes are appearing all through it....something "your" greenbeard doesn't talk about.
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
Financial holes?
Please. Learn something.
It is a huge endeavor. It is going to save money in the end. Like installing a solar water heater. Upfront costs are high.........long term money savings.
Think long term, nutter.
Please. Learn something.
It is a huge endeavor. It is going to save money in the end. Like installing a solar water heater. Upfront costs are high.........long term money savings.
Think long term, nutter.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Totally false. You never answered why industrialized nations that have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care ALSO spend less than half of what America spends on all public and private health care, AND, they have better outcomes, lower adult mortality rates, lower infant mortality rates and they did not become socialist countries.
More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.
Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita. The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy. wiki
American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
I guess the government could ask the private sector to donate money, huh?
I'm the nutter???????
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Name the last....check that...the FIRST time that gubmint stuck its nose into something and the costs went down.
3...
2...
1...
GO!
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
Federal Highway System has lowered transportation and delivery costs for individuals and businesses.....as well as promoted the US automobile industry.
Federal programs have contributed to the eradication of scores of diseases...lowering the nation's health care costs. Government regulations on smoking have led to a reduction in health costs due to smoking caused illness.
Federal monetary policy has effectively staved off full blown depression and regulated ( made more predictable ) the business cycle.
The GI Bill made college education affordable and led to the economic engine of the middle class going into high gear after WW 2.
Medicare.
Try harder.
I'm sure everyone benefiting from these policies appreciates the perks. The federal highway system was definitely a boon to Detroit (though the railroads took it in the shorts - still remember my grandfather ranting about that one). The insurance industry, the banks, and higher education all benefited from government programs designed to funnel tax dollars their way.
Socializing costs isn't the same thing as reducing them. It's just getting others to pay for them. Decades after all these programs have been in place, despite the fact that some people have benefited (and others harmed), the state of the markets in question doesn't really support your argument. Cars aren't cheaper, healthcare prices are so inflated hardly anyone can afford them, banks depend on taxpayer bailouts (while still managing to earn record profits) and higher education is hardly a bargain.
But I won't claim that government intervention in the economy is bad because it drives inflation. It's bad because it's a gross violation of the concepts of freedom and equal protection. It centralizes too much power in the hands of leaders who are ever more willing to whore that power out to their corporate sponsors. It's bad because it undermines the core concepts of democracy.
Last edited:
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
None of those things made anything less expensive or more efficient....They were just plain old giveaways.
And Fed monetary policy is completely seperate from anything the gubmint does...Aside from that, it ws primarily responsible for the Great Depression.
That's a big fat 0-fer.....Try again.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
You CAN'T be serious? You are truly an IDIOT.
A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
40 Years of the US Interstate Highway System: An Analysis
The Best Investment A Nation Ever Made
Without a first class system of interstate highways, life in America would be far different --- it would be more risky, less prosperous, and lacking in the efficiency and comfort that Americans now enjoy and take for granted. People would be crowded into more densely packed inner cities, intercity travel would occur less often and be more cumbersome; freight charges would be higher and, as a consequence, so would prices. Vacation travel would be more restricted.
The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways is in place and celebrating its 40th anniversary, must surely be the best investment a nation ever made. Consider this:
It has enriched the quality of life for virtually every American.
It has saved the lives of at least 187,000 people.
It has prevented injuries to nearly 12 million people.
It has returned more than $6 in economic productivity for each $1 it cost.
It has positioned the nation for improved international competitiveness.
It has permitted the cherished freedom of personal mobility to flourish.
It has enhanced international security.
It is not an exaggeration, but a simple statement of fact, that the interstate highway system is an engine that has driven 40 years of unprecedented prosperity and positioned the United States to remain the world's pre-eminent power into the 21st century.
While it is not typically thought of in this way, the system is in reality a gift from one group of people --- highway users --- to the nation as a whole, which has reaped a gain of at least $6 in benefit for each $1 spent in construction. And that's just the beginning --- there are additional benefits such as higher employment rates and greater economic opportunity that are simply beyond quantification. Fortunately, the group of people who paid for the interstate highway system is sufficiently large that it's difference from the nation as a whole is virtually without distinction. But it is a worthy difference to keep in mind as a backdrop for public policy deliberations over future funding of highways.
The US Interstate Highway System: 40 Year Report
FA_Q2
Gold Member
Yes we get it. Roads good. No shit Sherlock. That was not what was asked though. What was asked was what has the government ever taken over and reduced the cost of. Roads were never taken over from anything and it is more than likely the privet sector could have done it FAR cheaper. Unfortunately, there was no reason to as there is no profit motive in it the government had to come in and set up roads. You know what, that means it was a governmental responsibility – something that the private sector was unwilling and incapable of doing. Like police, fire rescue and a whole host of other things that the government does.
Now, relate that to healthcare because it is not even close to similar in any regard whatsoever. It has no parallels AT ALL.
Eric Cartman
Gold Member
- Mar 21, 2011
- 772
- 334
- 180
Eric Cartman
Gold Member
- Mar 21, 2011
- 772
- 334
- 180
Diversionary tactic: When someone is making points that you are unable to counter then it is time to throw out a pointless and misleading question (e.g. when did you stop beating your wife) in order to appear not to be getting your butt kicked in an argument.
1 Prices tend to go up slightly... that is our monetary policy.
2 The government taxes and regulates every industry to some degree.
3 Even with an intentional low inflation rate, prices still fluctuate up an down in regulated industries (e.g. housing, energy, technology) despite regulations.
hence the question is pointless. Talk radio hosts use this question when they are losing arguments.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
If we can bomb iran and remove its leader from the gene pool
- Started by Hurricanelover
- Replies: 4
-
-
Russia Remade Its Economy for War, but It’s Come at a Huge Cost - The New York Times- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 2
