• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Intellectual property has no single owner once it has been released for public consumption.

No patents, no copyrights... And somehow you expect that business will continue to wililngly participate in investing, or individual investors will make up the difference out of the goodness of their hearts?

In your perfect world, I see much less medical, technological, and artistic advancements and endeavors.
 
The pharmaceuticals do have to have a way of recovering research and development costs, or there won't be any research and development. The current system is to give them a temporary monopoly on what they've developed.

As a result, R and D continues, but more money is spent on advertising than on R and D. Another result is that some non generic prescriptions are so expensive that most people can't afford them without insurance, and the insurance companies can't afford them without charging rather large premiums.

Is there a better way, I wonder, one that pays for R and D, but not TV ad campaigns?

Maybe TV advertising of prescription drugs could go the way of TV advertising of tobacco products.
 
The pharmaceuticals do have to have a way of recovering research and development costs, or there won't be any research and development. The current system is to give them a temporary monopoly on what they've developed.

As a result, R and D continues, but more money is spent on advertising than on R and D. Another result is that some non generic prescriptions are so expensive that most people can't afford them without insurance, and the insurance companies can't afford them without charging rather large premiums.

Is there a better way, I wonder, one that pays for R and D, but not TV ad campaigns?

Maybe TV advertising of prescription drugs could go the way of TV advertising of tobacco products.

That would be OK with me.
 
We're paying for it before reform. We pay in insurance premiums, higher costs, passed on by those who use services and don't pay, a society that believes more is better (more tests, more procedures, more drugs) no matter what the actual fact of the matter is. Our present system without reform encourages excess in every way. How do you suppose we pay for that?

Fact is, more reform, something a kind to a universal payer (which has not even ever been proposed), would allow some ability to measure and control cost, being more cost effective than the ad hock mess we currently have.

Just because you're not paying with tax dollars doesn't mean you aren't paying for it and for others. You pay for those uninsured and unable to pay right now, without a single tax increase or one attached to health care reform.

You didn't address my question. I asked how we are going to pay for the new health care reform bill that was signed into law.

You say we are paying for it now, what department is in charge of moving the funds we are paying now over to pay for the new ones? :roll:
 
You didn't address my question. I asked how we are going to pay for the new health care reform bill that was signed into law.

You say we are paying for it now, what department is in charge of moving the funds we are paying now over to pay for the new ones? :roll:

That's the problem. Right now we have no way to control the cost, we've been charged for others with no way to monitor it or control it in anyway. It is done completely ad hoc with no real control at all, meaning we likely pay more than it actually costs.

This bill will likely lower or reduce the growth of those costs, being more cost effective over all. At a minimum, we should be able to see more of where the money is going, giving us more control. But it won't be as effective as a true universal payer system would be.

What we have now is a compromise effort that won't pay for anything as well as it could, but will likely be less expensive than doing nothing. The answer to your question is that we are shifting cost and not increasing cost. And if it works, it will lower both costs and premiums, thus saving money in the long run.

I don't think this goes far enough to do so in a major way, but it is a start and better than doing nothing. But either way, no matter we do, we pay for it. Just as we have been paying for it all along.
 
That's the problem. Right now we have no way to control the cost, we've been charged for others with no way to monitor it or control it in anyway. It is done completely ad hoc with no real control at all, meaning we likely pay more than it actually costs.

Supposition.


This bill will likely lower or reduce the growth of those costs, being more cost effective over all. At a minimum, we should be able to see more of where the money is going, giving us more control. But it won't be as effective as a true universal payer system would be.

The health care systems in Mass. and Hawaii where this has been tried do not support your claim that this will lower costs.

What we have now is a compromise effort that won't pay for anything as well as it could, but will likely be less expensive than doing nothing.

Paying for health care that we currently have and paying taxes to fund this new law in not less expensive than doing nothing.

The answer to your question is that we are shifting cost and not increasing cost. And if it works, it will lower both costs and premiums, thus saving money in the long run.


I don't think this goes far enough to do so in a major way, but it is a start and better than doing nothing. But either way, no matter we do, we pay for it. Just as we have been paying for it all along.

In specific, just how are the costs going to shift?, I see new taxes and I see continued current costs. Put the two together and you don't get the same or less money spent, you get more money spent.
 
In specific, just how are the costs going to shift?, I see new taxes and I see continued current costs. Put the two together and you don't get the same or less money spent, you get more money spent.

Uninsured people will have insurance, reducing the need for hospitals to raise costs to cover them. At a minimum, this should reduce the need to jack up cost. And it might even encourage them to lower prices. There is something in the bill that allows hospitals and doctors to benefit from cost savings, which would also lower costs, thus saving us all money.

But even if it only stopped the excessive growth, that would be an improvement.
 
Uninsured people will have insurance, reducing the need for hospitals to raise costs to cover them. At a minimum, this should reduce the need to jack up cost. And it might even encourage them to lower prices. There is something in the bill that allows hospitals and doctors to benefit from cost savings, which would also lower costs, thus saving us all money.

But even if it only stopped the excessive growth, that would be an improvement.

Are you saying that my current health care costs will go down enough to offset the costs of this new law. because uninsured people will now be insured?
Why then are we paying taxes on this new law for 4 years before this happens, I am still paying for my existing insurance and I am paying for this new insurance as well.

Paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people who don't pay for thier own does not give me warm fuzzies BTW
 
Paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people who don't pay for thier own does not give me warm fuzzies BTW

You aren't going to be paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people. :roll:
 
You aren't going to be paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people. :roll:

No, the tooth fairy is going to pay for all the uninsured to join those who pay for thier own insurance.:doh

Where do you think the money is going to come from?
 
Are you saying that my current health care costs will go down enough to offset the costs of this new law. because uninsured people will now be insured?
Why then are we paying taxes on this new law for 4 years before this happens, I am still paying for my existing insurance and I am paying for this new insurance as well.

Paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people who don't pay for thier own does not give me warm fuzzies BTW

I'm saying it will move in that direction, or at least slow down growth. Yes, it should do that.

Next to nothing happens over night. No magic bullets. For anything to change, it will take time.
 
You aren't going to be paying for health insurance for 30-45 million people. :roll:

That's true, and his non response doesn't help him actually address your point either. Many will pick up their own insurance, paying for it themselves.
 
If you read the bill, you will you would think otherwise.

Score 10 points for politicians duping the commoners again.

The American public wasn't duped. They know what it was about.
Now we're waiting for November to get rid of the Anti American faction in Congress.

Score 10 points for Leftist politicians using parliamentarian procedures unintended for the purpose to ram through, to screw the American electorate.

Hope.
Change.
Unity.
?

Try:
Deaf.
Dumb.
Blind... Anti-American Alinsky ideologues.

.
 
That's true, and his non response doesn't help him actually address your point either. Many will pick up their own insurance, paying for it themselves.

You and Misterman would do well to actually read the bill before you embarrass yourselves further. Taxpayers will be picking up all or some of the premium costs for people earning up to $88,000. per year.

30-45 million people ?? Who knows... the numbers have changed constantly since this debacle was first introduced.
 
You and Misterman would do well to actually read the bill before you embarrass yourselves further. Taxpayers will be picking up all or some of the premium costs for people earning up to $88,000. per year.

30-45 million people ?? Who knows... the numbers have changed constantly since this debacle was first introduced.

I've read a good amount of it. Perhaps you should read more of it and less of the fear mongering. ;)
 
No, the tooth fairy is going to pay for all the uninsured to join those who pay for thier own insurance.:doh

Where do you think the money is going to come from?

What money? Not all 30-45 million people will need or qualify for subsidies. That's the point.
 
Why then are we paying taxes on this new law for 4 years before this happens, I am still paying for my existing insurance and I am paying for this new insurance as well.
Another myth.

Some of the benefits that will be introduced within the first year:

Small business tax credits
Coverage for those with pre-existing conditions
Assistance for early retirees
Dependent coverage to age 26
No more rescissions
Enhanced preventive care

Some of the major tax changes will be delayed by a few years:

Medical device taxes (2013)
Taxes to benefit Medicare Part A (2013)
Insurance sector fees (2014)
Mandated coverage (penalty to start low in 2014 and then phase in through 2016)
"Cadillac tax" (2018)

10 percent of the total is raised in the first four years


PolitiFact | Tiahrt: Health care bill will collect 10 years of taxes for six years of services
 
What money? Not all 30-45 million people will need or qualify for subsidies. That's the point.


The money to pay for this new law. Or are you telling me that it is self sufficient?
Are all the Rupub senators wrong? Is the CBO wrong? Paul Ryan?
Maybe you know something that the rest of America does'nt?
 
Another myth.

I am still paying taxes for this pig of a law and my current health care premiums.

Nothing you have posted changes this fact.

Calling something a myth does not change what it is. Why don't you call this bill a tomato and see if it changes form somehow.
 
I've read a good amount of it. Perhaps you should read more of it and less of the fear mongering. ;)

You need to read some more of it. Obviously, you don't know that a large number of people will get subsidies from taxpayers to pay for this pig.
 
I am still paying taxes for this pig of a law and my current health care premiums.
What specific tax, relating to this bill, are you currently paying? :)
 
The money to pay for this new law. Or are you telling me that it is self sufficient?
Are all the Rupub senators wrong? Is the CBO wrong? Paul Ryan?
Maybe you know something that the rest of America does'nt?

I repeat - not all 30-45 million people will be "paid for" under this law.
 
You need to read some more of it. Obviously, you don't know that a large number of people will get subsidies from taxpayers to pay for this pig.

How many? How much will they get?
 
How many? How much will they get?

How many?? No one knows the exact number. How many families in the U.S. with four members makes $88,000. or less?? That's how many.

How much depends on income. For example, people at 133% of the federal poverty level (currently $22,000. for a family of four) will pay a maximum of 3% of income for coverage. People at 400%, will pay a maximum of 9.5%. The taxpayers pay the rest.

For example, if health coverage for a family of four is $12,000. per year and they make $88,000. a year, the rest of us will subsidize their health care premiums $3,640. The family will pay $8,360. per year. Not a bad deal for them, sucks for the rest of us.

And that's not even counting the increased number of people that will be eligible for Medicaid.

You really should read what's in this bill before posting as if you know what it's about.
 
Last edited:
How many?? No one knows the exact number. How many families in the U.S. with four members makes $88,000. or less?? That's how many.

Right. So people should stop going around saying numbers like "35-40 million."

We don't know how many (though there are plenty of estimates out there) but we do know that not everyone who doesn't have health insurance today lacks it because they can't afford to pay any of the premiums.
 
Back
Top Bottom