New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Conservative · May 3, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Health care costs are currently a troubling burden on families and businesses. Yet without reform, this burden will increase dramatically. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the cost of a family premium under employer-provided health insurance will increase by approximately 70 percent (after inflation) in the next nine years. This cost growth will have cascading effects across the economy as businesses trim benefits and workers lose their coverage.

According to researchers at Harvard University, a 20-percent increase in premiums costs 3.5 million workers their jobs, causes millions more to move from full-time to part-time work, and cuts the average income by approximately $1,700. CBO predicts that this 20- percent increase will occur over the next four years.

America Without Health Care Reform

Well since nothing in this bill lowers premium costs I guess the answer is just throw more money at the problem. This bill spends trillions on top of what we are spending for Medicare and Medicaid now. There is no evidence that this bill will cut costs and in fact history shows it increases costs. Your blind faith is allowing the govt. to write checks it cannot cover without borrowing or printing money all because it makes you feel good.

Boo Radley · May 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Well since nothing in this bill lowers premium costs I guess the answer is just throw more money at the problem. This bill spends trillions on top of what we are spending for Medicare and Medicaid now. There is no evidence that this bill will cut costs and in fact history shows it increases costs. Your blind faith is allowing the govt. to write checks it cannot cover without borrowing or printing money all because it makes you feel good.

Doesn't it? If there is less reason for hospitals to overcharge, then there is less reason for insurance companies to raise prices. Now, a public option would have done more, but you know how that went.

Conservative · May 3, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Doesn't it? If there is less reason for hospitals to overcharge, then there is less reason for insurance companies to raise prices. Now, a public option would have done more, but you know how that went.

Becareful what you ask for, there is no example of a public option being implemented in a country the size of the United States with 50 independent states who have rights and who has millions of citizens dependent on the healthcare industry for salaries, dividends, and charity work. You really don't know how business works, do you?

Boo Radley · May 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Becareful what you ask for, there is no example of a public option being implemented in a country the size of the United States with 50 independent states who have rights and who has millions of citizens dependent on the healthcare industry for salaries, dividends, and charity work. You really don't know how business works, do you?

I'm very familiar with how things work, and have done time in free clinics. I told you about conversation with someone doing that work in Chicago earlier. A public option would have helped more. Not as much as a single payer, but more than what we have now. And it really was the best compromise option.

Conservative · May 3, 2010

Boo Radley said:
I'm very familiar with how things work, and have done time in free clinics. I told you about conversation with someone doing that work in Chicago earlier. A public option would have helped more. Not as much as a single payer, but more than what we have now. And it really was the best compromise option.

That is your opinion which you are entitled to but you cannot offer an example of a good single pay system anywhere in the world as you don't seem to have a clue as to how it is paid for and what that has done to the economy of those countries?

Boo Radley · May 3, 2010

Conservative said:
That is your opinion which you are entitled to but you cannot offer an example of a good single pay system anywhere in the world as you don't seem to have a clue as to how it is paid for and what that has done to the economy of those countries?

Frankly, single payer system throughout the world have done fine. Nothing's perfect, but France isn't wanting to be us. Neither does much of Europe. Heck, even Canada really doesn't want to change places. Sure you can find a few discontents anywhere, but we rank pretty low according to the WHO.

Conservative · May 3, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Frankly, single payer system throughout the world have done fine. Nothing's perfect, but France isn't wanting to be us. Neither does much of Europe. Heck, even Canada really doesn't want to change places. Sure you can find a few discontents anywhere, but we rank pretty low according to the WHO.

I put zero faith in the WHO how doesn't use the same measurement per country. Their numbers are hardly accurate.

Do you really want an economy like France, Canada or any other country in Europe? How about $7-10 gasoline? How about a large VAT tax. You haven't thought this through at all and are too emotionally tied up supporting this POS legislation that does nothing to lower costs. How are costs lowered when tort reform and competition isn't even mentioned in the bill? How do you legally force people to buy insurance and then give them an opt out? Think they won't opt out?

Boo Radley · May 3, 2010

Conservative said:
I put zero faith in the WHO how doesn't use the same measurement per country. Their numbers are hardly accurate.

Do you really want an economy like France, Canada or any other country in Europe? How about $7-10 gasoline? How about a large VAT tax. You haven't thought this through at all and are too emotionally tied up supporting this POS legislation that does nothing to lower costs. How are costs lowered when tort reform and competition isn't even mentioned in the bill? How do you legally force people to buy insurance and then give them an opt out? Think they won't opt out?

I'm sure you do, as it doesn't fit your personal narrative. However, they map out well what they are measuring and we do have some issues. Access being one of them. We also spend a lot for less.

Conservative · May 3, 2010

Boo Radley said:
I'm sure you do, as it doesn't fit your personal narrative. However, they map out well what they are measuring and we do have some issues. Access being one of them. We also spend a lot for less.

Tell me how they measure life expectancy and where military fatalities are placed in those numbers. How many other deaths are not health related but are added to the numbers?

winston53660 · May 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Tell me how they measure life expectancy and where military fatalities are placed in those numbers. How many other deaths are not health related but are added to the numbers?

If you have a point why don't you just make it?

Conservative · May 3, 2010

winston53660 said:
If you have a point why don't you just make it?

The point is WHO numbers which are used to promote the current healthcare bill are flawed and aren't comparing apples to apples.

Boo Radley · May 3, 2010

Conservative said:
Tell me how they measure life expectancy and where military fatalities are placed in those numbers. How many other deaths are not health related but are added to the numbers?

Do you really suggest that war is the reason for the numbers? Seriously?

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

winston53660 · May 3, 2010

Conservative said:
The point is WHO numbers which are used to promote the current healthcare bill are flawed and aren't comparing apples to apples.

Okay how do you come to this conclusion?

Conservative · May 3, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Do you really suggest that war is the reason for the numbers? Seriously?

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

The fact that the WHO doesn't put rankings out should tell you something and I don't know for sure but have been told that WHO numbers include military deaths in this country and since most military deaths are younger people that skews the numbers.

Doesn't really matter since the rankings are no longer being done. So stop using WHO as a source.

Boo Radley · May 3, 2010

Conservative said:
The fact that the WHO doesn't put rankings out should tell you something and I don't know for sure but have been told that WHO numbers include military deaths in this country and since most military deaths are younger people that skews the numbers.

Doesn't really matter since the rankings are no longer being done. So stop using WHO as a source.

I don't know who told you that, but as they put it out in 2000, which is before we are war, I'm not sure how you can make this claim. I would be interested in you providing evidence to support your claim.

And what do you mean WHO doesn't put rankings out?

WHO Press Releases 2000

Press Release WHO/44
21 June 2000

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

Conservative · May 3, 2010

Boo Radley said:
I don't know who told you that, but as they put it out in 2000, which is before we are war, I'm not sure how you can make this claim. I would be interested in you providing evidence to support your claim.

And what do you mean WHO doesn't put rankings out?

WHO Press Releases 2000

Press Release WHO/44
21 June 2000

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

I said I was told but have nothing to back it up. I find 2000 numbers outdated though, don't you?

Boo Radley · May 4, 2010

Conservative said:
I said I was told but have nothing to back it up. I find 2000 numbers outdated though, don't you?

Well, if you have nothing to back it up, you can't really make the claim. Surprised you believe stuff you hear without questioning it more.

And no, 2000 is not particularly out dated. We haven't changed that much since then. In fact, we may well be worse.

Conservative · May 4, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Well, if you have nothing to back it up, you can't really make the claim. Surprised you believe stuff you hear without questioning it more.

And no, 2000 is not particularly out dated. We haven't changed that much since then. In fact, we may well be worse.

The question is why do you believe WHO? Every country has different accounting and reports data differently. Many of the countries have a controlled press that controls the data output. This just goes to show how naive you really are. Keep buying the rhetoric while the rest of us pay the bills.

Boo Radley · May 4, 2010

Conservative said:
The question is why do you believe WHO? Every country has different accounting and reports data differently. Many of the countries have a controlled press that controls the data output. This just goes to show how naive you really are. Keep buying the rhetoric while the rest of us pay the bills.

Because they document what they are measuring and lay out their rationale. The question is not their accuracy, but whether what they measure are the important things to measure. Access versus costs seems reasonable to me. We pay a lot for less.

Conservative · May 4, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Because they document what they are measuring and lay out their rationale. The question is not their accuracy, but whether what they measure are the important things to measure. Access versus costs seems reasonable to me. We pay a lot for less.

How do you assure the accuracy of what is reported to them that they report? What is important in one country isn't important in another.

As for access, with a doctor shortage how is there better access? Putting the cart before the horse is what liberals do, always. We are 13 trillion in debt because of it.

Boo Radley · May 4, 2010

Conservative said:
How do you assure the accuracy of what is reported to them that they report? What is important in one country isn't important in another.

As for access, with a doctor shortage how is there better access? Putting the cart before the horse is what liberals do, always. We are 13 trillion in debt because of it.

The information is documented and verifiable. No one is arguing accuracy that I know of. But if you have something that questions it legitimately, present it.

As for what is important? We can look at what is measured and decide for ourselves. I can look at cost, access, and what we get and make a reasonable judgment. I think most can.

As for access, you still overstate the shortage. It is far less a problem than then being uninsured and unable to afford care. We have been over this a lot already.

Conservative · May 4, 2010

Boo Radley said:
The information is documented and verifiable. No one is arguing accuracy that I know of. But if you have something that questions it legitimately, present it.

As for what is important? We can look at what is measured and decide for ourselves. I can look at cost, access, and what we get and make a reasonable judgment. I think most can.

As for access, you still overstate the shortage. It is far less a problem than then being uninsured and unable to afford care. We have been over this a lot already.

We have one example of Universal healthcare in this country and a lot of projections about the future. I will take the known vs. the projected. The known is MA which of course you ignore. Costs have risen there and there is absolutely no reason to believe it won't rise here as well.

Govt. social engineering in Medicare is another example. Original cost estimates have been blown out of the water but now for some reason a different group of liberals believe things are different. Things aren't different. I don't trust you and your ideology with our tax dollars and you refuse to admit that you just could be wrong. That is liberal arrogance.

Boo Radley · May 4, 2010

Conservative said:
We have one example of Universal healthcare in this country and a lot of projections about the future. I will take the known vs. the projected. The known is MA which of course you ignore. Costs have risen there and there is absolutely no reason to believe it won't rise here as well.

Govt. social engineering in Medicare is another example. Original cost estimates have been blown out of the water but now for some reason a different group of liberals believe things are different. Things aren't different. I don't trust you and your ideology with our tax dollars and you refuse to admit that you just could be wrong. That is liberal arrogance.

MA is hardly a finished product either. It also isn't universal single payer system. Hawaii is a much closer example. It too isn't single payer, but neither is the national effort.

Medicare isn't a good example because it is limited to people who need care without the well counter balance. Despite this and the problems, there isn't a large line of people clamoring to end the program.

misterman · May 4, 2010

Conservative said:
As for access, with a doctor shortage how is there better access? Putting the cart before the horse is what liberals do, always. We are 13 trillion in debt because of it.

So there was no debt built up while Bush and the GOP Congress were running things?

Conservative · May 4, 2010

misterman said:
So there was no debt built up while Bush and the GOP Congress were running things?

Sure was but it had nothing to do with tax rate cuts that grew revenue. Bush and the Republican AND Democrat Controlled Congress spent too much.