Thread: The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money

Originally Posted by Conservative

Yes, the Govt. can print more money and set whatever price they want for services but how does that reduce the cost of healthcare. It reduces what one pays but not the cost. R&D would suffer, the number of doctors would suffer more, the number of hospitals wouldn't increase but the cost you pay would be less. That seems to be only what you are looking for, someone else to fund your personal responsibility issue.

No, they take the burden off business for providing health insurance. Do you support that? If not, do you want to keep business burdened, or do away with insurance and allow people to not receive treatment they need because they can't afford it?

As for your large question concerning health care costs, here's an overview:

At least 15% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (21%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs.[4][5] More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world,[6][7] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.[7] Despite the fact that not all citizens are covered, the United States has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita.[8][9] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 62% of all personal bankruptcies.[10] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[citation needed]

(snip)

According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[20][21] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [20] while a 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found a much higher figure of more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.[22][23] More broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care was estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.[24]

(snip)





(snip)

On March 1, 2010, billionaire Warren Buffett (who is considered one of the world’s most savvy investors[53]) said that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees’ health care put them at a competitive disadvantage. He compared the roughly 17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with the 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, “[t]hat kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.”[54

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States]Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Boo Radley;1058665120]No, they take the burden off business for providing health insurance. Do you support that? If not, do you want to keep business burdened, or do away with insurance and allow people to not receive treatment they need because they can't afford it?

Spoken like someone who is totally clueless. Where does the money come from to "take the burden" off private business? One of these days you will grow up and understand what the govt. is doing to you.

As for your large question concerning health care costs, here's an overview:

At least 15% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (21%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs.[4][5] More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world,[6][7] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.[7] Despite the fact that not all citizens are covered, the United States has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita.[8][9] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 62% of all personal bankruptcies.[10] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[citation needed]

Wrong, 15% are not totally uninsured as many in that group are SELF insured or CHOOSE not to buy insurance. They prefer to pay for services as rendered. That seems to be a concept you do not understand and buy into the liberal mentality of creating a crisis so they can appeal to people like you and you buy it.
(snip)

According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[20][21] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [20] while a 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found a much higher figure of more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.[22][23] More broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care was estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.[24]

Yeah, keep buying the rhetoric. Certainly no agenda there, LOL. No one can prove those numbers thus you buy them. It cannot be proven that people in those numbers die because of lack of insurance because all people have access to healthcare and there is no guarantee that people with insurance would see a doctor thus lower that number unless of course liberals like you force people to go to doctors that don't exist but what the hell, all will have insurance that the taxpayers will fund.

On March 1, 2010, billionaire Warren Buffett (who is considered one of the world’s most savvy investors[53]) said that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees’ health care put them at a competitive disadvantage. He compared the roughly 17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with the 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, “[t]hat kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.”[54

Are you ever going to get around to actually addressing the costs of healthcare in this country and the affect the govt. has on those costs, the affects wages have on those costs, the affect of litigation on those costs, the affects of denying competition has on those costs?

As with most liberals in this country thinking is never part of the process nor is actually addressing the problems. This legislation may make you feel better but it does nothing to improve the quality of healthcare. You know it and I know it, but only one of us will admit it. As you stated it isn't perfect, well why not? Why would you support a multi trillion dollar program that isn't perfect?

Who do think is paying now? Again, you are paying right now. Right now you are paying for others to have health care, and at an high rate with little to no oversight.

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Who do think is paying now? Again, you are paying right now. Right now you are paying for others to have health care, and at an high rate with little to no oversight.

Then truly address those that are using the ER's and not paying, but instead like all liberals you social engineer and tear down the house to fix the bathroom.

You are right, I am paying now as

In addition in order to lower costs you need to define costs but no, liberals never do that. Why? What are you afraid of? Why do liberals like you believe the govt. is the answer when it has NEVER been the answer.

Originally Posted by Conservative

Then truly address those that are using the ER's and not paying, but instead like all liberals you social engineer and tear down the house to fix the bathroom.

You are right, I am paying now as

In addition in order to lower costs you need to define costs but no, liberals never do that. Why? What are you afraid of? Why do liberals like you believe the govt. is the answer when it has NEVER been the answer.

You have to turn people away, including emergencies. Are you willing to do that? Otherwise, you will continue to pay for them.

Originally Posted by Conservative

Then truly address those that are using the ER's and not paying

How would you address them?

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

You have to turn people away, including emergencies. Are you willing to do that? Otherwise, you will continue to pay for them.

What I am willing to do which apparently you aren't is to really define the problem and then go after payment. Illegals, go to the govt. and deduct the amount from foreign aid. For those without insurance enter into a payment plan or go after assets. This is a problem that isn't solved by this legislation but in fact makes it worse, less doctors and more patients thus more of a demand on the emergency rooms.

Originally Posted by Conservative

What I am willing to do which apparently you aren't is to really define the problem and then go after payment. Illegals, go to the govt. and deduct the amount from foreign aid. For those without insurance enter into a payment plan or go after assets. This is a problem that isn't solved by this legislation but in fact makes it worse, less doctors and more patients thus more of a demand on the emergency rooms.

No, you're inaccurately defining the problem. The problem is there even without illegals. And no, there will likely be more doctors. You're have it all wrong. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

No, you're inaccurately defining the problem. The problem is there even without illegals. And no, there will likely be more doctors. You're have it all wrong. Sorry.

Sorry, but you live in a dream world, when you take away incentive you lower output not increase it. Based upon history it isn't likely that there will be more doctors.

Why don't you define the problem then since obviously I have it wrong? You made the case for over use of the ER's as driving up costs and I pointed out that the ER's are being used by the insured. How does this bill address that?

You make the same argument over and over again yet claim this bill isn't perfect. Then you use terms like likely and possibly. IF it were your money would you implement this bill and fund it? I certainly wouldn't and I base my statement on history.

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

No, you're inaccurately defining the problem. The problem is there even without illegals. And no, there will likely be more doctors. You're have it all wrong. Sorry.

By the way, there are a lot of doctors out there that disagree with you. Govt. regulating payments for Medicare and Medicaid do not provide the incentive to go into the profession especially when faced with their own costs of doing business.

You seem to have a serious problem understanding how businesses operate including the medical profession. I cannot believe how naive you are. No one can force people to go into the profession and we apparently have an Administration that has never run a business or held a private sector job that doesn't understand business either.

Obama is so used to using his personality to sell his programs and having people like you buy his rhetoric. The results however don't match the rhetoric.

Stimulus plan was supposed to cap unemployment at 8% and there are 4 million more employed today than when Obama signed the stimulus.

The debt when Obama took office was 10.6 trillion and it is 12.7 trillion today. Deficits are continuing to rise and it is projected that the debt will be 90% of GDP by Obama's own estimates. Healthcare reform in this bill does nothing to lower deficits. Printing money, borrowing money, raising taxes doesn nothing to lower deficits.