Obama Care

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

and of course the U.S. Census Bureau isn't influenced in any way by politicians & gov't bureaucrats interested in expanding the gov't sphere of influence.....

So before you completely discount the link, I'll break it down for you. The Census Bereau estimate of "uninsured" is 45.7M. What the Blue Cross, Blue Shield asserts is the following:

Of the 45.7M
- 14M would qualify for Medicaid/SCHIP or another gov't program to provide coverage.
- 13M make over $ 50K or more and have access to coverage and chose not to pay for it.
- 5.7M are short-term uninsured, or people who are between jobs, college grad, etc.
Total = 32.7M

The 8.2M number isn't in the link, and I'll have to look for where I found it again, but the 8.2M number includes an estimate of about 4.8M for illegal immigrants who were counted as "uninsured" by Census. Either way the 45.7M is grossly over-estimated. Using 8.2M as the real number of uninsured we have accounted for 82% of the 45.7M that you want covered....and we haven't passed any legislation or spent a dime.

Now back to my voucher point, why can't we use some sort of voucher for these 8.2M to buy private insurance, pass legislation limiting awards to malpractice lawsuits and see how things go, without a masive gov't intervention into health care.

You know what really bothers me? That you think the Census Bureau and BCBS are on the same playing field. I really did look at the document looking for methodology used and all I got was "Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; BCBSA analysis." WTF does that mean? How did they arrive at "13M make over $ 50K" is beyond me.

I'm sorry but this document is totally unacceptable.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

You know what really bothers me? That you think the Census Bureau and BCBS are on the same playing field. I really did look at the document looking for methodology used and all I got was "Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; BCBSA analysis." WTF does that mean? How did they arrive at "13M make over $ 50K" is beyond me.

I'm sorry but this document is totally unacceptable.

But what if those numbers are correct, or pretty close. I would say that changes the health care discussion, correct?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

But what if those numbers are correct, or pretty close. I would say that changes the health care discussion, correct?

Assuming, big monstrous assumption here, it would change to something along the lines of I still want universal health care and this what we aught to do:

1. Get those who are eligible but not enrolled covered and inform them of their ability to get basic heath care.
2. Force those making over 50K to sign up. No saving money on the side and asking us to bail them out when they have an emergency. If our savings rate is any indication these fools most likely don't have enough money to pay for a costly surgery.
3. Get those short-term uninsured covered so they wouldn't worry about getting sick or having to pay for health care while unemployed.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Assuming, big monstrous assumption here, it would change to something along the lines of I still want universal health care and this what we aught to do:

1. Get those who are eligible but not enrolled covered and inform them of their ability to get basic heath care.
2. Force those making over 50K to sign up. No saving money on the side and asking us to bail them out when they have an emergency. If our savings rate is any indication these fools most likely don't have enough money to pay for a costly surgery.
3. Get those short-term uninsured covered so they wouldn't worry about getting sick or having to pay for health care while unemployed.

1. Agree
2. I don't want to "force" them to sign up. But coerce by making them fully responsible for medical bills to the point where their responsibilty would be the same as federal taxes (meaning they can't go bankrupt and avoid the med charges), absolutely.
3. Agree

And now we look at some sort of vouchers/tax credits for the remaining 8.2M and put in limits on malpractice suits to help control costs. Ride that model for 1-2 years and track the effects and revise as necessary.

Our assumption is not a monstrous one:

Is The Number of Uninsured Accurate? - FOXBusiness.com

David Hogberg on Health Insurance on National Review Online

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

1. Agree
2. I don't want to "force" them to sign up. But coerce by making them fully responsible for medical bills to the point where their responsibilty would be the same as federal taxes (meaning they can't go bankrupt and avoid the med charges), absolutely.
3. Agree

And now we look at some sort of vouchers/tax credits for the remaining 8.2M and put in limits on malpractice suits to help control costs. Ride that model for 1-2 years and track the effects and revise as necessary.

Our assumption is not a monstrous one:

Is The Number of Uninsured Accurate? - FOXBusiness.com

David Hogberg on Health Insurance on National Review Online

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?


Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?


Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?

Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud!

I say just increase the taxes on the people who think this is a good idea.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud!

That was a rhetorical question genius. You know, to highlight the cost of what he is suggesting and to see how it compares to actually providing a universal heal care plan with a public option. And you wonder why I ignore you.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

This point can certainly be negotiated fairly easily in a congressional sub-committee.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?

Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?

The 14M eligible have to be covered under the existing plans. I'm for a balanced budget so either Medicare tax increases or coverages are cut. Even if you take the 5.7M and the 8.2M and estimate $ 1,500 / yr. to cover their coverage through a private insurer you're looking at about $ 21B / yr. I'll give you $ 11B out of the defense budget, if you give me the other $ 10B from other discretionary.