• 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!

Nearly 50 percent of doctors ready to quit medicine if Healthcare bill passes

You misunderstand. No one is objecting to profit. You're not really addressing the issue at all. This is about charging us extra to cover those they treat who don't or can't pay. When they don't pay, we do. We pay more. This rises costs across the board.

I am still waiting for you to break out the number of people using the ER's that cannot pay. If hospitals have bad bookkeeping and don't bill those that can pay why should the taxpayer fund it. Stop with the broad brush, the number of people using the ER that cannot pay is a very small number in the overall scheme. I already posted MA numbers of insured using the ER's. Do taxpayers pay for that usage?
 
I am still waiting for you to break out the number of people using the ER's that cannot pay. If hospitals have bad bookkeeping and don't bill those that can pay why should the taxpayer fund it. Stop with the broad brush, the number of people using the ER that cannot pay is a very small number in the overall scheme. I already posted MA numbers of insured using the ER's. Do taxpayers pay for that usage?


Again? Will you remember seeing it this time?

At least 15.3% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (35%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs.[4][5]

(snip)

A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated that uninsured people in the U.S. received approximately $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001.[86] The study noted that this amount per capita was half what the average insured person received. The study found that various levels of government finance most uncompensated care, spending about $30.6 billion on payments and programs to serve the uninsured and covering as much as 80–85% of uncompensated care costs through grants and other direct payments, tax appropriations, and Medicare and Medicaid payment add-ons. Most of this money comes from the federal government, followed by state and local tax appropriations for hospitals. Another study by the same authors in the same year estimated the additional annual cost of covering the uninsured (in 2001 dollars) at $34 billion (for public coverage) and $69 billion (for private coverage). These estimates represent an increase in total health care spending of 3–6% and would raise health care’s share of GDP by less than one percentage point, the study concluded.[87] Another study published in the same journal in 2004 estimated that the value of health forgone each year because of uninsurance was $65–$130 billion and concluded that this figure constituted "a lower-bound estimate of economic losses resulting from the present level of uninsurance nationally."[88]

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

Consumers can find the cost of many drugs on Johns Hopkins ABX Guide, and I found that one unit of Ampicillin/Sulbactam, for example, cost the hospital $10, but they charged my son $378; eight units cost the hospital $80, but they charged $3,024 for it. Or a one-gram Vancomycin injection costs the hospital $9.75 per unit, and they charged my son $387. Five shots cost the hospital $48.75, but they charged my son $1,935. Same with Moxifloxacin IV, 400 mg: It costs the hospital $43.75, but they charge the patient $557. All together, the total hospital cost for medication for my son's entire stay (according to the ABX guide) was $187.54, and the total Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital charged my son was $5,625. These are all very common antibiotics, and the markup was 2,999 percent.

(snip)

I was stunned to learn that California hospitals are free to set whatever charges they want for their services, medicines, and supplies. I'd heard justifications such as: High hospital charges are necessary to offset the hospital costs of those without insurance and function as a type of "hidden tax" the rest of us must bear,

The Santa Barbara Independent All Marked Up




You might also rad this:

Arguments for health-care reform: Uninsured in the emergency room? | The Economist
 
Again? Will you remember seeing it this time?

At least 15.3% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (35%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs.[4][5]

(snip)

A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated that uninsured people in the U.S. received approximately $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001.[86] The study noted that this amount per capita was half what the average insured person received. The study found that various levels of government finance most uncompensated care, spending about $30.6 billion on payments and programs to serve the uninsured and covering as much as 80–85% of uncompensated care costs through grants and other direct payments, tax appropriations, and Medicare and Medicaid payment add-ons. Most of this money comes from the federal government, followed by state and local tax appropriations for hospitals. Another study by the same authors in the same year estimated the additional annual cost of covering the uninsured (in 2001 dollars) at $34 billion (for public coverage) and $69 billion (for private coverage). These estimates represent an increase in total health care spending of 3–6% and would raise health care’s share of GDP by less than one percentage point, the study concluded.[87] Another study published in the same journal in 2004 estimated that the value of health forgone each year because of uninsurance was $65–$130 billion and concluded that this figure constituted "a lower-bound estimate of economic losses resulting from the present level of uninsurance nationally."[88]

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consumers can find the cost of many drugs on Johns Hopkins ABX Guide, and I found that one unit of Ampicillin/Sulbactam, for example, cost the hospital $10, but they charged my son $378; eight units cost the hospital $80, but they charged $3,024 for it. Or a one-gram Vancomycin injection costs the hospital $9.75 per unit, and they charged my son $387. Five shots cost the hospital $48.75, but they charged my son $1,935. Same with Moxifloxacin IV, 400 mg: It costs the hospital $43.75, but they charge the patient $557. All together, the total hospital cost for medication for my son's entire stay (according to the ABX guide) was $187.54, and the total Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital charged my son was $5,625. These are all very common antibiotics, and the markup was 2,999 percent.

(snip)

I was stunned to learn that California hospitals are free to set whatever charges they want for their services, medicines, and supplies. I'd heard justifications such as: High hospital charges are necessary to offset the hospital costs of those without insurance and function as a type of "hidden tax" the rest of us must bear,

The Santa Barbara Independent All Marked Up




You might also rad this:

Arguments for health-care reform: Uninsured in the emergency room? | The Economist

That is 46 million Americans that you and others claim are under insured yet none of you know the actual finances of those 46 million, many of whom can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase insurance. Many of those 46 million are self insured yet according to some liberal that is being under insured.

Why don't you stop telling everyone else what they need and handle your own life and finances. You have proven nothing other than you believe what you are told but only by sources that you want to believe.

As a department head I hope you learn something. Do some research and find out how many people going to the Emergency Room are insured and have their insurance companies billed. Find out how many go to the ER's that are self insured and responsible for their own bills. Does your hospital bill them?

What gives you the right to tell anyone else what they need? Freedom of choice comes with responsibility except in your world. If people choose not to buy insurance and can afford insurance but then have to use the ER's they should be billed for those services and should lose their assets if they refuse to pay. That Boo is personal responsibility something you don't seem to understand.
 
That is 46 million Americans that you and others claim are under insured yet none of you know the actual finances of those 46 million, many of whom can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase insurance. Many of those 46 million are self insured yet according to some liberal that is being under insured.

Why don't you stop telling everyone else what they need and handle your own life and finances. You have proven nothing other than you believe what you are told but only by sources that you want to believe.

As a department head I hope you learn something. Do some research and find out how many people going to the Emergency Room are insured and have their insurance companies billed. Find out how many go to the ER's that are self insured and responsible for their own bills. Does your hospital bill them?

What gives you the right to tell anyone else what they need? Freedom of choice comes with responsibility except in your world. If people choose not to buy insurance and can afford insurance but then have to use the ER's they should be billed for those services and should lose their assets if they refuse to pay. That Boo is personal responsibility something you don't seem to understand.

I don't need to know the actual finances of them. Pay attention. They have not been paying, regardless, and we have been. That's one reason why calling on them to be responsible and have insurance is proper.

And what gives me the right is that I'm being asked to pay for them. Hell, not even asked. My costs just go up to do so. Their irresponsibility is effecting my bottom line.
 
I don't need to know the actual finances of them. Pay attention. They have not been paying, regardless, and we have been. That's one reason why calling on them to be responsible and have insurance is proper.

And what gives me the right is that I'm being asked to pay for them. Hell, not even asked. My costs just go up to do so. Their irresponsibility is effecting my bottom line.

There is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the govt. level yet you continue to support anything they say. Why aren't they paying? What gives anyone the right to skip out on a bill. If the taxpayer is funding someone else's healthcare bill that they can afford to pay where is your outrage?

Sounds to me like a typical liberal solution to a problem, force everyone to buy insurance because you cannot manage your own business. I don't expect you to hold your position long if you don't know how to collect from those that can afford but skip out on their bills. Seems to me you have found it easier to bill the taxpayer than to go after payment. Typical liberalism.
 
There is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the govt. level yet you continue to support anything they say. Why aren't they paying? What gives anyone the right to skip out on a bill. If the taxpayer is funding someone else's healthcare bill that they can afford to pay where is your outrage?

Sounds to me like a typical liberal solution to a problem, force everyone to buy insurance because you cannot manage your own business. I don't expect you to hold your position long if you don't know how to collect from those that can afford but skip out on their bills. Seems to me you have found it easier to bill the taxpayer than to go after payment. Typical liberalism.

You're dodging. Stay focused. Nothing wrong with fighting fraud and abuse while tackling this problem.

And if people don't have enough money, and don't have insurance, they really can't pay. Even if they can pay some, over years, which isn't likely, it wouldn't fix the problem. Today, before reform, we are paying for them. That's the bottom line.
 
You're dodging. Stay focused. Nothing wrong with fighting fraud and abuse while tackling this problem.

And if people don't have enough money, and don't have insurance, they really can't pay. Even if they can pay some, over years, which isn't likely, it wouldn't fix the problem. Today, before reform, we are paying for them. That's the bottom line.

This comes from a hardly conservative news outlet. Seems they understand the problem a lot better than you who claims to be in the business. It is you that needs to be focused. There aren't 46 million people in this country that cannot afford insurance and the fact is ER's are overcrowded now with people that have insurance but cannot get a doctor's appointment. Liberal policies are going to make that worse as they always do

Most ER patients have some health insurance - Health care- msnbc.com

By the way you don't have a clue as to what the bottomline line is
 
hmm... on this topic im all over the place with my opinions..

my context:
my dad passed away last year at the age of 66(god rest his soul)..

he was denied health insurance coverage on himself since his heart attack at age 19, until my mothers insurance company accidentally allowed him some level of at around age 60..

yes it wthout a doubt in their view that it was not supposed to be, to which they tried very hard to remove him, often denying benefits when they could find the means to relate it to his heart..

IMO, he was the epitome of human determination and the perfect example the finacially burdened, unspoken majority. the true working class man that never took a handout.. we were freaking dirt poor by any standard.
who wants to hire a person with all those risks after all.. so any job was good enough for him to keep food on the table.
trudging on as life dealt him 3 congestive heart failures, 2 strokes and eventually 2 brain hemorrhages, the second of which blinded him, took his speech.
this and the insurance company's death panel, lead to a decision by my siblings and my mother to allow him to pass on..

to make matters worse, when we requested that we be able to take him fom the hospital 3hrs away and bring him home to die, the insurance company quickly responded with a "so your releasing us of all obligations if you want to take him out of the hospitals care?".. well yea.. couldnt afford to rent rooms and he should be able to spend his last days at home..
from that point on, it was approx.$200 per day to have a morphine available and the goodness of nursing friends to help when needed.

the strongest man i ever knew was brought down by a faulty heart valve that could have been replaced while in his prime and lived a long, deserving life.

we found out later that his employer(the very township we lived in), up to the day they forced him to retire, was allowed and did buy life insurance policies with the dept. manager as the beneficiary.. essentially betting his life against him. what kind of BS is that..

so... if this HC bill has a means to put an end to such injustice then good.. though i realize there is always a dark and self-serving agenda when politicians are involved..

as to the alleged costs of this HC bill, reduce funding from the taxpayer paid research grants.. http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF
i firmly believe these funds are mostly squandered and what developments do come out of it are kept and marketed for profit by these corporations to "recoup" their alleged develoment expenses.
 
This comes from a hardly conservative news outlet. Seems they understand the problem a lot better than you who claims to be in the business. It is you that needs to be focused. There aren't 46 million people in this country that cannot afford insurance and the fact is ER's are overcrowded now with people that have insurance but cannot get a doctor's appointment. Liberal policies are going to make that worse as they always do

Most ER patients have some health insurance - Health care- msnbc.com

By the way you don't have a clue as to what the bottomline line is

Again, that doesn't matter. The fact is those who use it and can't pay cost us. Your article does not address this at all.
 
Again, that doesn't matter. The fact is those who use it and can't pay cost us. Your article does not address this at all.

Nor will you address the issue, Let me yell it at you, as the article listed one in five Americans will use the ER at least once during the year which is about 60 million Americans. HOW MANY OF THOSE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR THEIR ER USAGE?? Until you answer that question nothing else matters. My bet is you have no interest in getting the facts and like all liberals are looking for someone else to pay for your lack of business skills and responsibility.
 
Nor will you address the issue, Let me yell it at you, as the article listed one in five Americans will use the ER at least once during the year which is about 60 million Americans. HOW MANY OF THOSE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR THEIR ER USAGE?? Until you answer that question nothing else matters. My bet is you have no interest in getting the facts and like all liberals are looking for someone else to pay for your lack of business skills and responsibility.

I've given you a number of those who use who are either uninsured or under insured, which means they don't have the resources to pay for it. If you read the links, you will those who could afford it without insurance don't use the ER.

So, you have been answered repeatedly.
 
I've given you a number of those who use who are either uninsured or under insured, which means they don't have the resources to pay for it. If you read the links, you will those who could afford it without insurance don't use the ER.

So, you have been answered repeatedly.

Why do you buy the term underinsured? Where is that defined and how do you know the finances of those classified in that category?

I gave you first hand information. I ran a 200 million dollar business, offered insurance to all employees including part time, never paid minimum wage, paid over 80% of the cost of insurance and less than 50% of the people, most self classified as invincible, participated. You need to find another cross to carry.

What makes you such an expert on the finances of others? This is the liberal arrogance which led to the passage of this multi trillion dollar POS that is going to cost more than intended, do less than intended, and never solve a problem. Just another example of spending IN THE NAME of compassion but not getting actual compassionate spending.
 
Why do you buy the term underinsured? Where is that defined and how do you know the finances of those classified in that category?

I gave you first hand information. I ran a 200 million dollar business, offered insurance to all employees including part time, never paid minimum wage, paid over 80% of the cost of insurance and less than 50% of the people, most self classified as invincible, participated. You need to find another cross to carry.

What makes you such an expert on the finances of others? This is the liberal arrogance which led to the passage of this multi trillion dollar POS that is going to cost more than intended, do less than intended, and never solve a problem. Just another example of spending IN THE NAME of compassion but not getting actual compassionate spending.

underinsured:

Person not adequately covered for a particular loss or damage, or who fails to meet a coinsurance requirement.

underinsured definition

This study estimates that nearly sixteen million people ages 19–64 were underinsured in 2003. Underinsured adults were more likely to forgo needed care than those with more adequate coverage and had rates of financial stress similar to those of the uninsured. Including adults uninsured during the year, 35 percent (sixty-one million) were under- or uninsured. These findings highlight the need for policy attention to insurance design that considers the adequacy of coverage.

(snip)

Using respondents’ estimates of out-of-pocket medical care expenses, plan deductibles, and income, we classified them as underinsured if they were insured all year but reported at least one of three indicators: (1) Medical expenses amounted to 10 percent of income or more; (2) among low-income adults (below 200 percent of the federal poverty level), medical expenses amounted to at least 5 percent of income; and (3) health plan deductibles equaled or exceeded 5 percent of income.17

Insured But Not Protected: How Many Adults Are Underinsured? -- Schoen et al., 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.289 -- Health Affairs

A reasonable definition is not that hard to come by.
 
underinsured:

Person not adequately covered for a particular loss or damage, or who fails to meet a coinsurance requirement.

underinsured definition

This study estimates that nearly sixteen million people ages 19–64 were underinsured in 2003. Underinsured adults were more likely to forgo needed care than those with more adequate coverage and had rates of financial stress similar to those of the uninsured. Including adults uninsured during the year, 35 percent (sixty-one million) were under- or uninsured. These findings highlight the need for policy attention to insurance design that considers the adequacy of coverage.

(snip)

Using respondents’ estimates of out-of-pocket medical care expenses, plan deductibles, and income, we classified them as underinsured if they were insured all year but reported at least one of three indicators: (1) Medical expenses amounted to 10 percent of income or more; (2) among low-income adults (below 200 percent of the federal poverty level), medical expenses amounted to at least 5 percent of income; and (3) health plan deductibles equaled or exceeded 5 percent of income.17

Insured But Not Protected: How Many Adults Are Underinsured? -- Schoen et al., 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.289 -- Health Affairs

A reasonable definition is not that hard to come by.

Again, you miss the point by design as it is your desire to make this country something that it never was intended to be. What causes a person to be underinsured? How do you know what someone else's personal finances are?

You are so willing to take a textbook definition and not get involved in real world issues. Millions of Americans can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it. How many of those are classified as underinsured? How many people are second income earners for a household but CHOOSE not to purchase health insurance because another family member has insurance. Are those classified as uninsured or under insured?

You simply are showing your arrogant liberal side again and totally ignore the problem facing this country which is a bloated, out of control Federal Govt. that continues to want to social engineer. too bad you don't have the same outrage over the way out govt.operates as you do with the way you PERCEIVE business to operate. There is no doubt in my mind that as a Dept. head you will either learn about business or you will lose your job, probably the latter.
 
just a question to the both of you.. conservative and boo.. (since you two are the most active with basically polar opposite views)

do you believe any of the numbers provided by either side of the spectrum are real? (honest answers please)

i for one most certainly take any politically motivated statistic(or for that matter any "statistic" relative to cost of govt.) with a grain of salt and then some..


now for more of my $0.02 on the alleged current and future cost of healthcare..
in my relatively unknowing armchair opinion..
to help pay for the free healthcare provided now and in the future to those that are uninsured by choice or otherwise, who are actually using, or have used in the prior calendar year, "free" medical services, they and anyone accepting public aid/welfare/subsidies, should be denied any tax return up to the assessed cost of services rendered.

sadly, im sure that proposal or anything remotely similar isnt part of the HC bill/fleecing.. (as implied earlier, im really a mixed bag on this subject :spin:)
 
Not sure it isn't a good thing as it depends on where the money goes. If it goes to R&D, employing people, improving infrastructure then it is a good thing. Profits aren't bad nor should they be demonized.

Tell me where those high costs go? You are the one posting articles claiming that healthcare costs are 17% of GDP but cannot explain how those costs were registered nor why that is a bad thing since most here don't understand GDP.

Where do they go? Good question. I'm really not sure, but it would appear that a lot of the money goes to advertising, to CYA tests ordered by doctors, to visits to the emergency room that could have been paid for much more cheaply in a doctor's office.

Some of it goes to patient treatment, some to R and D, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that more goes to advertising than to R and D.
 
underinsured:

Person not adequately covered for a particular loss or damage, or who fails to meet a coinsurance requirement.

underinsured definition

This study estimates that nearly sixteen million people ages 19–64 were underinsured in 2003. Underinsured adults were more likely to forgo needed care than those with more adequate coverage and had rates of financial stress similar to those of the uninsured. Including adults uninsured during the year, 35 percent (sixty-one million) were under- or uninsured. These findings highlight the need for policy attention to insurance design that considers the adequacy of coverage.

(snip)

Using respondents’ estimates of out-of-pocket medical care expenses, plan deductibles, and income, we classified them as underinsured if they were insured all year but reported at least one of three indicators: (1) Medical expenses amounted to 10 percent of income or more; (2) among low-income adults (below 200 percent of the federal poverty level), medical expenses amounted to at least 5 percent of income; and (3) health plan deductibles equaled or exceeded 5 percent of income.17

Insured But Not Protected: How Many Adults Are Underinsured? -- Schoen et al., 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.289 -- Health Affairs

A reasonable definition is not that hard to come by.


you should also consider there are those that would fall within the "underinsured" definition, who do not utilized their insurance, of which the somewhat ambiguous definiton has led to their grouping with those who may be overusing their insurance..

there are some people that just dont go to the doc, unless they need an appendage sewn back on. these are persons who normally wouldnt choose to be on a medical plan unless strongly impressed upon by an employer..
which ironically on a small scale, is similar to asking someone else to help pay for anothers healthcare..(at least its still voluntary, rather than being required..)

there are those who potentially overuse their insurance for every sniffle/ache/moan imaginable. which they can certainly do, after all they paid for it... so i really havent a complaint about this, with the exception of those who just do not take care of themselves and eventually create costs that others on the same plan must also fund.(you know the ones... smoking 2packs a day at 50+ yrs of age and have a BMI of 60+..)

my vaguely presented point is that statistics are usually manipulated to fit the view of the statustician and often "broad brushed" to include those that effectively are not in actuality adding to the totals being presented.(though i havent the foggiest clue how to separate the "fluff" from the "stuff")
 
Where do they go? Good question. I'm really not sure, but it would appear that a lot of the money goes to advertising, to CYA tests ordered by doctors, to visits to the emergency room that could have been paid for much more cheaply in a doctor's office.

Some of it goes to patient treatment, some to R and D, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that more goes to advertising than to R and D.

the problem is there is a doctor shortage now as I posted and is worse in MA where there is universal healthcare and full coverage for all citizens. That isn't going to get any better, and then there are doctors and hospitals all over the nation dropping Medicare. Add millions to the insured roles and how does the system handle that increase in demand? It doesn't, costs are going up and access is going to drop.
 
WhyteRash;1058761032]just a question to the both of you.. conservative and boo.. (since you two are the most active with basically polar opposite views)

do you believe any of the numbers provided by either side of the spectrum are real? (honest answers please)

I don't believe there are 46 million uninsured people in this country due to an inability to pay. I don't believe that the cost to the taxpayers is as high as Boo wants to make one believe for use of the ER's as most using the ER's actually have insurance. I don't believe the govt. number as to the cost of the healthcare bill nor do I believe it will improve quality, quantity, and lower costs.

What numbers have I given you that you want me to defend?

i for one most certainly take any politically motivated statistic(or for that matter any "statistic" relative to cost of govt.) with a grain of salt and then some..

The growth in the govt is well documented at the U.S. Treasury website as the U.S. Treasury is the checkbook of the United States and has expenses and revenue from all aspects of the govt.

It is my belief that it never was the intent of our Founders to have a govt. this size, 3.8 trillion dollars, nor was it their intent to have the Federal Govt. solve every state and local issue.

now for more of my $0.02 on the alleged current and future cost of healthcare..
in my relatively unknowing armchair opinion..
to help pay for the free healthcare provided now and in the future to those that are uninsured by choice or otherwise, who are actually using, or have used in the prior calendar year, "free" medical services, they and anyone accepting public aid/welfare/subsidies, should be denied any tax return up to the assessed cost of services rendered.

Hard to administer but I like the concept, just like I like the concept of billing the state department for healthcare administered to illegal aliens. That cost can then be billed to the country of origin or deducted from foreign aid.


sadly, im sure that proposal or anything remotely similar isnt part of the HC bill/fleecing.. (as implied earlier, im really a mixed bag on this subject :spin:

Logic, common sense, and a good review of history tells me that this healthcare bill isn't going to do anything to solve the healthcare problem and it is going to require a lot more taxpayer funding to pay for all the promises made.

My point has always been is you cannot solve the healthcare problem without identifying and addressing ALL the costs of healthcare and that includes the cost of lawsuits and the illegal immigration problem
 
Where do they go? Good question. I'm really not sure, but it would appear that a lot of the money goes to advertising, to CYA tests ordered by doctors, to visits to the emergency room that could have been paid for much more cheaply in a doctor's office.

Some of it goes to patient treatment, some to R and D, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that more goes to advertising than to R and D.



http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF

that report seems to have some interesting data related to how, what & where the dollars are spent..
 
I don't believe there are 46 million uninsured people in this country due to an inability to pay. I don't believe that the cost to the taxpayers is as high as Boo wants to make one believe for use of the ER's as most using the ER's actually have insurance. I don't believe the govt. number as to the cost of the healthcare bill nor do I believe it will improve quality, quantity, and lower costs.

What numbers have I given you that you want me to defend?

i was really not wanting defense of any numbers.. i was just asking your thoughts on the validity numbers being provided.

The growth in the govt is well documented at the U.S. Treasury website as the U.S. Treasury is the checkbook of the United States and has expenses and revenue from all aspects of the govt.

It is my belief that it never was the intent of our Founders to have a govt. this size, 3.8 trillion dollars, nor was it their intent to have the Federal Govt. solve every state and local issue.

cant agree more, but i also feel there are instances where lack of oversight allows the self-serving to manipulate the rules immorally(yet still legally) or simply create new rules(via "purchased" politicians) to benefit their personal and genrally finacial agenda at the expense of the nation.(eg. NAFTA)


Hard to administer but I like the concept, just like I like the concept of billing the state department for healthcare administered to illegal aliens. That cost can then be billed to the country of origin or deducted from foreign aid.

i most certainly like the idea of billing the country of origin or deducting from the foreign aid provided. (grr... foreign aid... another hot button of mine)



Logic, common sense, and a good review of history tells me that this healthcare bill isn't going to do anything to solve the healthcare problem and it is going to require a lot more taxpayer funding to pay for all the promises made.


My point has always been is you cannot solve the healthcare problem without identifying and addressing ALL the costs of healthcare and that includes the cost of lawsuits and the illegal immigration problem


agreed.. now if we could manage to put in a congress that understands that..:rofl
 
Rather old report, 2001

yea i know.. id still say its safe to assume it only gotten larger in cost and bureaucracy..

anyway hard as i tried(which really wasnt alot..lol) i couldnt find a more recent report, instead i found documented requests and no results that gave any great detail..

im sure its there if i dig deeper..
 
You're dodging. Stay focused. Nothing wrong with fighting fraud and abuse while tackling this problem.

And if people don't have enough money, and don't have insurance, they really can't pay. Even if they can pay some, over years, which isn't likely, it wouldn't fix the problem. Today, before reform, we are paying for them. That's the bottom line.

Are you trying to imply that after "reform" they will be paying for themselves? Because I haven't seen where the taxpayers in this country will not be still paying for others health care.
 
Back
Top Bottom