Real Conspiracy(healthcare bill) - Page 7

Baal, I love you man but you got it wrong plain and simple. You are operating on common sense which usually serves you well since you are a smart guy but on complex issues, you gotta actually read a lot of stuff before you can fully understand the issue no matter how naturally smart you are. Did you read the report I linked? For example, you were totally wrong on the baby boomers which is understandable since that term is not well known outside the US. But if I were in a conversation with someone and they brought up a term I was unfamiliar with, I would look it up and become familiar with it before I confidently assert that the opposite is true.

The report I linked in section 3 highlights a long list of reasons why health care is so damn expensive in the US. If medicare were the problem, then the cost of health care for people on private insurance and not medicare would be cheaper, but in fact the opposite is true.

As I said before, I totally see where you are coming from and it makes a lot of common sense. You are right in that on the surface, it makes no sense for the US to ADD to their spending by expanding coverage when they should be reducing government spending. But try to step back for a second and look at it from a different perspective with an open mind. The US will spend over $8000 per person on health care expenditures in 2009 and at this rate, we will be spending over $13000 per person by 2018.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf

I have no illusions that we will suddenly spend as efficiently as the UK and Canada at less than $4000 per person. But let's say that this legislation can just stop the growth in per capita spending and keep it at $8000 per person in 2018 instead of the projected $13000. That is $5000 per person in savings and there will be something like 80 million people on medicare. That works out to 400 billion a year. That will be enough to provide coverage to another 50 million people @ $8000 a year and the number of uninsured in the US happens to be 40ish million.

That is obviously a rough calculation but it illustrates the point that the major problem is the cost per person. With even small improvements in efficiencies, we can provide universal coverage at a lower cost than what we pay currently.

On December 22 2009 23:13 Baal wrote: they did fail with medicare since the costs of it is unsustainable, what is a fail to you then? I didnt get it wrong, i meant overhaul medicare, because if medicare is not fixed it cannot be sustained

The US can keep medicare the way it is and sustain it if we had a health care system that would charge less than $8000 per person. If we reduce medical errors, improve access to medical records and admistrative functions, improve preventive care, do away with ridiculous expensive procedures that have questionable benefit to patients, stop paying more for drugs than people in every other country in the world, just to name a few, then maybe, JUST MAYBE we can join every other fucking country in the the entire world and spend less than $5000 per person on health care. I mean, come on, 194 other countries can manage to spend less than $5000 but the best that we can do is $8000? If it were even $6000 then I'd be more understanding but $8000 is fucking pathetic. Even if we were to spend as much money as Switzerland, the country that spends the second most on health care out of every country in the entire world, then medicare would be sustainable.

That is why I say that medicare is not the root of the problem. Covering old people is not the problem when plenty of other countries cover everyone with no problem. AND it wasn't a problem for the first thirty years of its existence.

The problem is that slowly but steadily, the US health care system has been falling apart and it is completely broken right now. Every single country in the entire world is managing to spend less than 11% of their GDP on health care but the US is spending 17% and that figure is projected to rise to above 20%.

yayyy! can't tell u how glad I am to see some good solid responses
thought the chances were decent that I'd come back to an empty platter

lookin like a great discussion tho I've only semi read most of the new stuff atm, especially the big posts on the "other side?"...or the ones that this pic pertains to

On December 22 2009 23:25 Baal wrote: Atleast have the fucking decency to read my posts before lumping me in with them ok? i am too far right or free market? you imbecile im an Anarchist, i way farther than the right than you, tenbagger or anybody in this thread -_- Ive said it like 10 times now in this god damn thread, im not against it as a system, im against it because i think that the worst crisis in 80 years is not a good time to do this, it is time to cut back medicare and other social benefits instead of squeezing an already suffocating economy only because they dont have the balls to loose some popularity to do what is best for the people. And also who gives a shit about what the majority of america wants, how does that makes it a good thing, the majority of america were in favour with the war in Aghanistan and Iraq at one point ding!.

You make it sound like if this bill wasn't passed the economy would recover... The economy is just starting to collapse. Like regardless if the government does nothing and deregulates to stimulate the economy and allows the economy to recover, the economy will still collapse to recover. The economy is so beyond the point of retarded it can't just take a step back and be recovered, it has to collapse to recover. K2o4, may you live forever.

its just, this collapse and recovery w/ government assistance, its hard to fathom how fucked the government will rape the economy on so many different levels. Hurts my brain to even consider.
whats going to happen is
The US gov is going to continue to grow and inflate the fiat currency, everytime it grows it is simultaneously suffocating the economy and causing chinese fears that the US won't make good on what it owes. Chinese government will remove the currency peg, causing rapid high prices in the US and prices to fall in China, a transfer of standard of living from the west to the east, that is long overdue. At this point all V has to do is keep his word. The US government in response will become ever more tyrannical, the smart people will leave the country. The country will be left with idiots being under the rule of a democracy, there won't be anything to tax cause business and trade will be at an all time low but you can bet your testicles the government will inflate the currency to pay for its programs and the worse the economy gets the more the people will clamor for the government to do something. I thought perhaps the internet maybe if people heard and understood the message of freedom the fate of the US could be avoided. But after listening to you k2o4 and realizing you are probably smarter than the average citizen, i've lost hope not that i need it anyway, it was just a dream freedom would win out.
MLK says which just happens to be very true:

One of the many different issues regarding the US health care system, full article can be seen here

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html?_r=1&hp

- According to Dartmouth, Medicare pays about $50,000 during a patient’s last six months of care by U.C.L.A., where patients may be seen by dozens of different specialists and spend weeks in the hospital before they die.

By contrast, the figure is about $25,000 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., where doctors closely coordinate care, are slow to bring in specialists and aim to avoid expensive treatments that offer little or no benefit to a patient.

“One of them costs twice as much as the other, and I can tell you that we have no idea what we’re getting in exchange for the extra $25,000 a year at U.C.L.A. Medical,” Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of the Dartmouth data, has noted. “We can no longer afford an overall health care system in which the thought is more is always better, because it’s not.”

By some estimates, the country could save $700 billion a year if hospitals like U.C.L.A. behaved more like Mayo. High medical bills for Medicare patients’ final year of life account for about a quarter of the program’s total spending.

- Doctors, too, often have trouble letting go.

Many acknowledge that the current payment system encourages more care, because it rewards doctors for providing additional tests and procedures — not for spending the hours sometimes necessary to guide patients and families through the long, difficult process of deciding when to stop.

“The more tubes you put in, the more you get paid,” said Dr. Patrick T. Dowling, chairman of the department of family medicine at U.C.L.A.

But the bigger challenge may be changing the “we’re not going to let you die” culture at places like U.C.L.A.

On December 22 2009 23:58 TenBagger wrote: Baal, I love you man but you got it wrong plain and simple. You are operating on common sense which usually serves you well since you are a smart guy but on complex issues, you gotta actually read a lot of stuff before you can fully understand the issue no matter how naturally smart you are. Did you read the report I linked? For example, you were totally wrong on the baby boomers which is understandable since that term is not well known outside the US. But if I were in a conversation with someone and they brought up a term I was unfamiliar with, I would look it up and become familiar with it before I confidently assert that the opposite is true. The report I linked in section 3 highlights a long list of reasons why health care is so damn expensive in the US. If medicare were the problem, then the cost of health care for people on private insurance and not medicare would be cheaper, but in fact the opposite is true. As I said before, I totally see where you are coming from and it makes a lot of common sense. You are right in that on the surface, it makes no sense for the US to ADD to their spending by expanding coverage when they should be reducing government spending. But try to step back for a second and look at it from a different perspective with an open mind. The US will spend over $8000 per person on health care expenditures in 2009 and at this rate, we will be spending over $13000 per person by 2018. http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf I have no illusions that we will suddenly spend as efficiently as the UK and Canada at less than $4000 per person. But let's say that this legislation can just stop the growth in per capita spending and keep it at $8000 per person in 2018 instead of the projected $13000. That is $5000 per person in savings and there will be something like 80 million people on medicare. That works out to 400 billion a year. That will be enough to provide coverage to another 50 million people @ $8000 a year and the number of uninsured in the US happens to be 40ish million. That is obviously a rough calculation but it illustrates the point that the major problem is the cost per person. With even small improvements in efficiencies, we can provide universal coverage at a lower cost than what we pay currently.

Like I said, Tenbagger is putting it out there with a clearer and nicer explanation than I can so if people can't understand it coming from him then I don't know how to get the point across. Another good post Tenbagger.

Woot it passed the senate!

Although it's Christmas Eve, I wanted to share some exciting news: The Senate just passed a historic health reform bill. ... When you make calls, write letters, organize, this is the change you're making -- a better life for your family and for men and women in every state. There is still more to do before I can sign reform into law -- a last round of negotiations and final votes in the Senate and the House -- and I'm counting on your help every step of the way. But for now, I hope that as you celebrate this holiday season, you remember that the work you are doing is making our union more perfect, one step at a time. For that, I am grateful to you. Merry Christmas and happy holidays, President Barack Obama P.S. -- Organizing for America supporters are signing a note of appreciation to all the senators who have worked so hard to make this possible. I hope you'll join them: http://my.barackobama.com/SenateLetter

Crazy that we've gotten this far. Still a bit more to do. From what I've read it won't be signed into law until February since the senate doesn't get back to session till late January and then the house/senate gotta put together their final version to give to Obama to sign.

Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit?

On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit?

Warning: Loony Alert!

Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous.

congratulations on joining the rest of the civilised world and abandoning your fascist dogma for rationale

On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous.

It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree?

is it safe to assume that TenBagger is raping this thread at this point ?

On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree?

Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live?

I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it?

so according to the new health legislation 93% would be covered. my question is who falls under the 7% that doesn't qualify ?

On December 25 2009 00:50 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree? Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live? I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it?

when we talk about gov forcing me to purchase health insurance, you are saying its ok because it will improve my life. So what else can the gov force me to do to improve my life and the lives of others. Perhaps it should force me to run miles everyday. Perhaps the gov should take away world of warcraft and all my vices and addictions. Perhaps it should ban red meat since it increases the risk of cancer. That way it would lower the cost of healthcare as well. If gov banned red meat and forced its citizens to run miles everyday, healthcare costs would go down a great deal. Shouldn't alcohol be banned k2o4? That increases risk of cancer, causes death due to disease and fatal accidents and then theres accidents where people survive and have health care bills.

im just saying your position is hugely hypocritical. If gov can force me to purchase health insurance for my own good, then it should ban alcohol for my own good. Its already banned marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and all the good hallucigens, for my own good, so why is alcohol still legal? Are you actively pushing for the ban of alcohol k2o4 like you are for the healthcare bill because alcohol does more harm to the public well being than healthcare bill improves the public well being. If you aren't i'd suggest for a matter of efficiency you switch your focus from healthcare bill to banning of alcohol. You'd do the public alot more good this way.

they're not forcing u to get health insurance... theyre taking money to make free health system which u can use if u want to.

On December 25 2009 09:19 genjix wrote: they're not forcing u to get health insurance... theyre taking money to make free health system which u can use if u want to.

1.1 trillion spending bill and you call it free?

On December 25 2009 08:44 woodbrave1 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 25 2009 00:50 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree? Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live? I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it? when we talk about gov forcing me to purchase health insurance, you are saying its ok because it will improve my life. So what else can the gov force me to do to improve my life and the lives of others. Perhaps it should force me to run miles everyday. Perhaps the gov should take away world of warcraft and all my vices and addictions. Perhaps it should ban red meat since it increases the risk of cancer. That way it would lower the cost of healthcare as well. If gov banned red meat and forced its citizens to run miles everyday, healthcare costs would go down a great deal. Shouldn't alcohol be banned k2o4? That increases risk of cancer, causes death due to disease and fatal accidents and then theres accidents where people survive and have health care bills. im just saying your position is hugely hypocritical. If gov can force me to purchase health insurance for my own good, then it should ban alcohol for my own good. Its already banned marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and all the good hallucigens, for my own good, so why is alcohol still legal? Are you actively pushing for the ban of alcohol k2o4 like you are for the healthcare bill because alcohol does more harm to the public well being than healthcare bill improves the public well being. If you aren't i'd suggest for a matter of efficiency you switch your focus from healthcare bill to banning of alcohol. You'd do the public alot more good this way.

Your argument is based off of a logical fallacy, slippery slope. You and eastside love this one but it's a fail.

On December 25 2009 11:30 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 25 2009 08:44 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 25 2009 00:50 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree? Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live? I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it? when we talk about gov forcing me to purchase health insurance, you are saying its ok because it will improve my life. So what else can the gov force me to do to improve my life and the lives of others. Perhaps it should force me to run miles everyday. Perhaps the gov should take away world of warcraft and all my vices and addictions. Perhaps it should ban red meat since it increases the risk of cancer. That way it would lower the cost of healthcare as well. If gov banned red meat and forced its citizens to run miles everyday, healthcare costs would go down a great deal. Shouldn't alcohol be banned k2o4? That increases risk of cancer, causes death due to disease and fatal accidents and then theres accidents where people survive and have health care bills. im just saying your position is hugely hypocritical. If gov can force me to purchase health insurance for my own good, then it should ban alcohol for my own good. Its already banned marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and all the good hallucigens, for my own good, so why is alcohol still legal? Are you actively pushing for the ban of alcohol k2o4 like you are for the healthcare bill because alcohol does more harm to the public well being than healthcare bill improves the public well being. If you aren't i'd suggest for a matter of efficiency you switch your focus from healthcare bill to banning of alcohol. You'd do the public alot more good this way. Your argument is based off of a logical fallacy, slippery slope. You and eastside love this one but it's a fail.

how about you stop deflecting and start explaining the logical fallacy.

Google is good

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/