Obama Care

[firstdown]

I'm sure the shortage of doctors has nothing to do with pay and males able to find higher paying jobs in the private market.

[firstdown]

Obama's plan is allready working (well not working that good) in Massachusetts but when I posted this in another thread people who argue for un health care seem to ignore post like this. I guess its hard to argue against facts of how its not working in Massachusetts when the numbers show its actually driving up cost and is now more then private ins. Then you just need to take a look at Ca. and their 26 billion in dept from social programs just like this but why let facts get in the way.

The proponents of the Massachusetts reforms
also promised that those reforms would
reduce health care costs. Governor Romney
said that “the cost of health care would be reduced”
and the plan would make health insurance
“affordable” for every Massachusetts citizen.


27

Supporters suggested that the reforms


would reduce the price of individual insurance

policies by 25–40 percent.



28

In reality, insurance premiums rose by 7.4

percent in 2007, 8–12 percent in 2008, and are
expected to rise 9 percent this year.



29 By comparison,


nationwide insurance costs rose by

6.1 percent in 2007, just 4.7 percent in 2008,
and are projected to increase 6.4 percent this
year.



30 On average, health insurance costs


$16,897 for a family of four in Massachusetts,


compared to $12,700 nationally.

31



Boy that sounds just like what the Dems and Obama are saying right now.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp112.pdf

I know this was not the best copy and paste but for the people who feel so strong about goverment run ins. why do you think it will be any different in cost then what happened here. Then just mane a large federal programe that is not over budget or running in the negative.

[firstdown]

[quote=firstdown;565972]Obama's plan is allready working (well not working that good) in Massachusetts but when I posted this in another thread people who argue for un health care seem to ignore post like this. I guess its hard to argue against facts of how its not working in Massachusetts when the numbers show its actually driving up cost and is now more then private ins. Then you just need to take a look at Ca. and their 26 billion in dept from social programs just like this but why let facts get in the way.

The proponents of the Massachusetts reforms
also promised that those reforms would
reduce health care costs. Governor Romney
said that “the cost of health care would be reduced”
and the plan would make health insurance
“affordable” for every Massachusetts citizen.


27

Supporters suggested that the reforms


would reduce the price of individual insurance

policies by 25–40 percent.



28

In reality, insurance premiums rose by 7.4

percent in 2007, 8–12 percent in 2008, and are
expected to rise 9 percent this year.



29 By comparison,


nationwide insurance costs rose by

6.1 percent in 2007, just 4.7 percent in 2008,
and are projected to increase 6.4 percent this
year.



30 On average, health insurance costs


$16,897 for a family of four in Massachusetts,


compared to $12,700 nationally.

31



Boy that sounds just like what the Dems and Obama are saying right now.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp112.pdf

I know this was not the best copy and paste but for the people who feel so strong about goverment run ins. why do you think it will be any different in cost then what happened here. Then just name a large federal programe that is not over budget or running in the negative. I just think we aill have the same results as Massachusetts.

[budw38]

Great posts Firstdown !!

[saden1]

Here something interesting for you folks who think the decline in the number of people going into medicine in Canada is due to pay:

On average a Senior Software Engineer with 5 years of experience in Vancouver B.C. makes C$72,750 (roughly $62,744), and the average Senior Software Engineer in Seattle with 5 years of experience makes $90,275. What this means is that a Canadian Sr. Software Engineers makes roughly $27,531 (44%) less than his American counterpart.

On average a Family Physician/Doctor in Canada makes C$116,757 (roughly $100,704), and the average Family Physician/Doctor in United States makes $135,454. What this means is that a Canadian Family Physician/Doctor makes roughly $34,750 (35%) less than his American counterpart.

Why take anyone's word for it if you can do the research yourself? On the real tip though, the field of medicine is one of the highest paying fields there is regardless where you are in the world.

[firstdown]

So I guess I can now say I make more then the average doctor. I would have never guessed that by the doctors I know.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?

OK, just look at any large federal program and then you have your answer. SS running out of money, Medicare/Medicade in trouble, how about the bail out of car companies that still went out of business. We could also look at what has happened to the public school system ever sense the federal goverment got involved. How about the bad bill Bush passed on percription drugs which I believe has doubled in cost v/s what they said it would cost. I don't look at this as a rep v/s dem issue I look it as another thing the goverment is going to screw up. You say don't point to Canada but the Dems point to them when talking about cost and care. You say don't look at Mass. system but it has been said their system is close to Obama's plan and it makes perfect sense to see what's happening with their plan. What else do we have to look at when talking about national heath care? Maybe we should all just turn a blind eye and let them do what ever they want. I don't think Universal Health care will fail I just believe it will drive up cost (see the example in Mass) and the quality of care will go down.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Firstdown: If we gave up at everything anyone had ever failed at, you would have never lived as long as you have already. Previous failures are not proof of future failures.

Please stop using Canada and Mass. as an example of how Universal Healthcare is impossible. And don't ask for proof of how Federal Healthcare will be different. Why don't you prove how it will be the same?

So don't
a) cite the current models as examples,
b) ask how they will prevent it from falling into the same traps that the models that are the basis for it fall into,

and do prove that it will be the same as what they are modeling it after.

Somehow your logic in this post baffles me.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So don't
a) cite the current models as examples,
b) ask how they will prevent it from falling into the same traps that the models that are the basis for it fall into,

and do prove that it will be the same as what they are modeling it after.

Somehow your logic in this post baffles me.

The point I was trying to make:

To say something is impossible, and basically shoot down every point of reason, and pretend we shouldn't even attempt something because of the possibility of failure is a lazy attitude, and one that is not conducive to progress.

For the record, I have no position on this matter, and I generally favor smaller government. I'm just sick of the defeatist attitude.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The point I was trying to make:

To say something is impossible, and basically shoot down every point of reason, and pretend we shouldn't even attempt something because of the possibility of failure is a lazy attitude, and one that is not conducive to progress.

For the record, I have no position on this matter, and I generally favor smaller government. I'm just sick of the defeatist attitude.

I doubt anyone argues it is impossible for the government to implement universal healthcare, only that it is unreasonable to expect government to handle it efficiently. Further, when things have proven track records, and they generally are bad, it is not "lazy" but prudent to examine the failed attempts very closely and determine why they failed.

When solving problems one does not come to valid solutions without a thorough look at why past attempts have failed. If people aren't willing to do that, then it is typically because they don't have good answers to the problems, and so instead they ignore them in the hopes that this time it will be different. There are fundamental problems with putting the responsibility for individual healthcare on the Federal government's plate and no one has really ever explained how a government that is in Trillion Dollar debt, with a SS retirement plan that is close to insolvent, and a medicare/medicaid program that eats up a significant portion of the budget outlays, can afford to take on such a huge financial burden.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I doubt anyone argues it is impossible for the government to implement universal healthcare, only that it is unreasonable to expect government to handle it efficiently. Further, when things have proven track records, and they generally are bad, it is not "lazy" but prudent to examine the failed attempts very closely and determine why they failed.

When solving problems one does not come to valid solutions without a thorough look at why past attempts have failed. If people aren't willing to do that, then it is typically because they don't have good answers to the problems, and so instead they ignore them in the hopes that this time it will be different. There are fundamental problems with putting the responsibility for individual healthcare on the Federal government's plate and no one has really ever explained how a government that is in Trillion Dollar debt, with a SS retirement plan that is close to insolvent, and a medicare/medicaid program that eats up a significant portion of the budget outlays, can afford to take on such a huge financial burden.

Good post, well said.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I doubt anyone argues it is impossible for the government to implement universal healthcare, only that it is unreasonable to expect government to handle it efficiently. Further, when things have proven track records, and they generally are bad, it is not "lazy" but prudent to examine the failed attempts very closely and determine why they failed.

When solving problems one does not come to valid solutions without a thorough look at why past attempts have failed. If people aren't willing to do that, then it is typically because they don't have good answers to the problems, and so instead they ignore them in the hopes that this time it will be different. There are fundamental problems with putting the responsibility for individual healthcare on the Federal government's plate and no one has really ever explained how a government that is in Trillion Dollar debt, with a SS retirement plan that is close to insolvent, and a medicare/medicaid program that eats up a significant portion of the budget outlays, can afford to take on such a huge financial burden.

It's not impossible for the government to implement universal healthcare, but it's unreasonable to expect them to do it right? In other words, there is no way they can do it right. That is defeatist.

I'm not against looking at the failures, but when you never *ever* offer any positive ideas, and just keep saying why it won't work, that is defeatist. Also, it's lazy when you offer the reasons for failure "in the effort of prudence", but you never offer any advice about how it could work. In other words, you just want to examine the failures so you can continue to oppose Universal Healthcare. You don't want to examine to failures so you can correct them. That's lazy.

Why don't you come up with some positive ideas? How do you think it's possible for the government to take on such a huge financial burden? What would need to be sacrificed? I suspect your answers would be: not possible and nothing.

Don't try and disguise your defeatist attitude with this crap. You know yourself that you're not interested in finding ways for it to work.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The point I was trying to make:

To say something is impossible, and basically shoot down every point of reason, and pretend we shouldn't even attempt something because of the possibility of failure is a lazy attitude, and one that is not conducive to progress.

For the record, I have no position on this matter, and I generally favor smaller government. I'm just sick of the defeatist attitude.

Its not a defeatist attitude the problem is once it is put into place its here to stay no matter how much it cost. Its not like we are building a rocket that we can test over and over again until you have a completed project. This is something that's put into place and never goes away.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

We need the people of the US to remember that our history was made not by Government providing for our needs, but by individuals and local citizens working through hardship and toiling to bring the prosperity we enjoy. Government should serve to safeguard the basic principles we all hold dear, freedom of the individual, justice that is blind when it comes to race, creed, wealth.

What a f'ing joke,

Crawford was commissioned to design the Statue of Freedom in 1854 and executed the plaster model for the statue in his studio in Rome. The statue was originally topped by a liberty cap but Senator and Secretary of War Jefferson Davis (who would later become the President of the Confederacy) was in charge of the construction and refused to allow the statue to wear the hat. He told Crawford to either remove it or he would give the commission to someone else. (Davis knew that in ancient Rome only freed slaves wore these hats and he didn't want to have a freed slave on top of the Capitol Dome.) So the American eagle helmet replaced the hat when the sculpture was made.

While Freedom was being cast at Mills' foundry the foreman in charge of the casting went on strike. Instead of paying him the higher wages he demanded Mills turned the project over to Philip Reid, one of the slaves working at the facility.