Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

  1. #21
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Mankiw is this summer arguing for a completely private system, with light regulations. I don't find his stance, opinions, or arguments on health care compelling at all.

  2. #22
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Quote Originally Posted by Intransigent Atheist View Post
    WASHINGTON - The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

    Senate committee passes health bill - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

    There is no use in spending this tremendous amount of money without looking at cost cutting first.

    I am confused by this OP and link. Which committee passed a health bill? The link is about Obama, I didn't see anything about a bill passing a committee vote.

  3. #23
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    But don'tchyouknow they are going to save so much money on this program that it will pay for itself!!!???

    It was never asserted that the program would pay for itself. It will be paid for through taxes on those making over $250k/yr and cost savings. Just as Obama campaigned on, and just as he was elected to do.

  4. #24
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Seen
    11-30-09 @ 04:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    446

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Republicans are anti-capitalists. They're afraid that the government run program will run the private insurance companies out of business. Or didn't you know that the public program was COMPETING with the private ones?

  5. #25
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    Please, don't put words into my mouth.
    It is pretty clear what I said.



    Justify?

    The 'Health Care' in the U.S., is at the top of (if not the best), treatment in the world and is only slightly comparable with other industrialized nations, being that our treatment is better.
    Nor should we lower our standards of care to cover everyone.

    As for actual costs.
    Yes they could be lowered by implementing what the CATO Institute suggested in 1994.

    People with Medicare insurance are more satisfied with their coverage than people with employer-based insurance. What is the argument for denying what people like better, costs less, and offers easier and better access to physicians (as reported by the insureds).



    Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up?

    May 12, 2009


    Synopsis


    In a national Commonwealth Fund survey, elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage, better access to care, and fewer problems paying medical bills than people covered by employer-sponsored plans. The findings bolster the argument that offering a public insurance plan similar to Medicare to the under-65 population has the potential to improve access and reduce costs.




    The Issue


    Much of the current health reform debate revolves around whether a public plan similar to Medicare should be made available to employers and individuals under age 65. The primary advantage of a Medicare-like plan is the cost reduction made possible by such a plan’s vast purchasing power and efficient public administration. Private coverage, on the other hand, can offer a greater variety of benefits, more flexibility in managing care, and more selective provider networks. In this study, the researchers sought to compare individuals with employer-sponsored plans and elderly individuals with Medicare to find out if a public plan could potentially improve access to necessary services and reduce the burden of medical bills for individuals under age 65.



    Findings


    • Medicare beneficiaries are more satisfied with their insurance coverage. Only 8 percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries rated their insurance “fair or poor,” in contrast with 18 percent of individuals with employer-based insurance. Thirty-two percent of Medicare beneficiaries had at least one negative insurance experience, compared with 44 percent of those covered by an employer plan.
    • Medicare beneficiaries report easier access to physicians. Ten percent of Medicare beneficiaries’ physicians did not accept their insurance, compared with 17 percent of respondents with employer-sponsored plans.
    • Medicare beneficiaries are less likely to report not getting needed services. Twelve percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported going without care, such as prescribed medications or recommended tests, because of cost restraints. Of individuals with employer-based plans, 26 percent reported experiencing these cost/access issues.
    • Medicare beneficiaries are sicker and poorer but report fewer medical bill problems. Elderly Medicare beneficiaries were more likely to rate their health as fair or poor than the employer-coverage group (28% vs. 11%); more likely to have multiple chronic conditions (38% vs. 11%); and more likely to have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (51% vs. 27%). Yet, Medicare beneficiaries were less likely to report a medical bill problem than those covered by employer plans.


    more ...

  6. #26
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke[MaxX] View Post
    Republicans are anti-capitalists. They're afraid that the government run program will run the private insurance companies out of business. Or didn't you know that the public program was COMPETING with the private ones?

    I actually find myself amazed to watch Republicans argue against competition ...

  7. #27
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    It was never asserted that the program would pay for itself. It will be paid for through taxes on those making over $250k/yr and cost savings. Just as Obama campaigned on, and just as he was elected to do.
    Even the liberal Brookings Institute disagrees with taxing the rich to pay for this crap.

    "It is bad economic policy because, coupled with the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts, it would raise marginal tax rates by 10 percentage points for high-income households. While I object to the general hue and cry that occurs anytime anyone discusses any potential tax increase for the rich, it is nevertheless quite fair to say that a 10 percentage point increase in taxation on the return to labor and capital income is a lot and shouldn’t be the first choice."

    "It is poor leadership because it furthers the myth that we can solve our fiscal problems by taxing “other” people or with “gimmick” taxes. It has been said many times already and will be said many times again: we are going to need broad based tax increases and spending cuts to bring the fiscal house into order, and the more politicians continue to act as if we can just foist the financing on a small group (be it rich people or foreign corporations or obese people or people who drink soda, etc.), the worse are our prospects for solving the problems."

    Financing Health Care Reform by Soaking the Rich: A Bad Idea All Around - Brookings Institution

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    I actually find myself amazed to watch Republicans argue against competition ...
    It's not real competition, since when was McDonald's allowed to tax everyone to pay for their operational costs and then call it competition?

    Everyone else is at a clear disadvantage in that scenario except McDonald's.
    Replace McDonald's with U.S. government and there you go.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #28
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    People with Medicare insurance are more satisfied with their coverage than people with employer-based insurance. What is the argument for denying what people like better, costs less, and offers easier and better access to physicians (as reported by the insureds).
    Because we can't afford Medicare as it is.

    Everyone brushes over the fact that Medicare is already unsustainable and adding more people to it will only bring the crash on sooner.

    "A looming Medicare shortage is seven times the size of the one that Social Security faces and nearly four times the entire federal debt."

    Medicare's deficit 7 times Social Security's - Politics- msnbc.com
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  9. #29
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Even the liberal Brookings Institute disagrees with taxing the rich to pay for this crap.
    The Brookings Institution is not liberal:

    History

    On its website the organization traces its origins "to 1916, when a group of leading reformers founded the Institute for Government Research (IGR), the first private organization devoted to analyzing public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR's backers, Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two supporting sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school bearing his name. In 1927, the three groups merged to form the Brookings Institution, honoring the businessman from St. Louis whose leadership shaped the earlier organizations."

    Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

    SourceWatch


    But, regardless of its leanings, their opinion does nothing to address my statement that Obama campaigned on this idea, he told us he was going to tax those earning over $250k, and he won the largest margin of any first term president in decades (maybe back to the 70s?). The country has already spoken on that issue, we want that happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It's not real competition, since when was McDonald's allowed to tax everyone to pay for their operational costs and then call it competition?

    Everyone else is at a clear disadvantage in that scenario except McDonald's.
    Replace McDonald's with U.S. government and there you go.

    That does not address at all the fact that Medicare is currently more efficient in their administration than private insurers are. That has nothing to do with medical reimbursements, it has to do with administration costs only.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Because we can't afford Medicare as it is.

    Everyone brushes over the fact that Medicare is already unsustainable and adding more people to it will only bring the crash on sooner.

    "A looming Medicare shortage is seven times the size of the one that Social Security faces and nearly four times the entire federal debt."

    Medicare's deficit 7 times Social Security's - Politics- msnbc.com

    Medicare's costs are spiraling, no doubt. Private insurers costs are spiraling more. This MUST be addressed, and MUST be solved. Deciding to go with the more expensive and less efficient option only (private insurers), and ignore that a less expensive and more efficient option (Medicare-style public option) competing head to head with private will force private to become more efficient makes no sense at all.


    ... The price of Medicare and Medicaid have gone up much more slowly than private insurance.







    Basic Facts: They're Important

  10. #30
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Medicare's costs are spiraling, no doubt. Private insurers costs are spiraling more. This MUST be addressed, and MUST be solved. Deciding to go with the more expensive and less efficient option only (private insurers), and ignore that a less expensive and more efficient option (Medicare-style public option) competing head to head with private will force private to become more efficient makes no sense at all.
    How is forcing people away from spiraling private insurance costs (meaning no hit to taxpayer) and into spiraling Medicare costs (meaning big hit to taxpayer) "solving" or even "addressing" the problem?

    Medicare is not "more efficient"--it merely externalizes costs.

    Cost-shifting is not efficiency. Efficiency would entail cost-elimination.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •