Twitter from Daily Kos: Healthcare Reform is Dead!

Superfreak said:
You were discussing why it is that 30 years ago people didn't face bankruptcy due to medical costs. Were you not?

It does not change the focus of the discussion to point out what else has changed in the last 30 years that has led us to the point where one catastrophic medical emergency can lead to bankruptcy.

Also... do read my other post on how to avoid the bankruptcy problems with a high deductible catastrophic plan.
Click to expand...

Why? You completely ignore my posts & the context of discussion whenever you jump into the middle of a discussion with partisan talking points that are irrelevant to what is actually being debated.

Why should I extend that courtesy to you? I don't think I will.
 
Onceler said:
Why? You completely ignore my posts & the context of discussion whenever you jump into the middle of a discussion with partisan talking points that are irrelevant to what is actually being debated.

Why should I extend that courtesy to you? I don't think I will.
Click to expand...

Do you want someone to call you a waaaaaambulance?

If you haven't noticed this is a DISCUSSION board. AGAIN... my point was right on topic. Your pretending that somehow they are partisan talking points is absurd.

Or do you actually think the issues behind rising health care costs are irrelevant to a discussion on people facing bankruptcy due to medical costs???
 
Here's the bigger point Onzies... the new government-run health care plan does NOTHING to reduce cost or increase availability of health care. Are you somehow failing to comprehend that point? Because I know it has repeatedly been made, and you seem to just ignore it over and over, and repeat the same bullshit about cost and availability!

What is it about this you can't understand? If we increase the demand on the health care system, by some estimates, as many as 30 million extra people... how in the hell can we possibly have more availability? Maybe you have an answer, if so, I would like to hear it, because this just seems to defy common sense and logic to me. We're going to add an additional 30 million to the waiting lists at doctors offices, hospitals, and clinics, yet we're somehow going to have more availability of actual health care?

If you mandate insurance companies pay for preexisting illnesses, meaning that someone can simply wait until they become sick to get insurance, how is this going to lower costs? Now the insurance companies have to pay all this extra money for treatment to people who were already sick, and the cost of this will surely have to be recovered in the insurance company's premiums, it is the only way they can remain solvent. Again, if you have some sort of magic solution that rectifies this fact of life, let me know... the way I see it, cost of health insurance will have to increase across the board.

I know how liberals think... We'll just raise the taxes on the wealthy, and that will cover the cost of this massive government entitlement. But there are not enough rich people in America to pay for this! You are talking about doing NOTHING to control cost or lower price in any way, increasing demand considerably, and mandating coverage of preexisting conditions for EVERY American! You really have no idea of how many TRILLIONS it will cost to do this, and you really don't care! In your mind, it is all worth it... but is it really? If it increases the cost and diminishes the availability, isn't it counterproductive to the problem?
 
Superfreak said:
and WHAT is behind the ever increasing costs?

Should that not be the PRIMARY focus of any changes to health care?

Why is that not the focus of the health care reform?
Click to expand...
Because cost is irrelevant when it is the "government's money"...
 
Damocles said:
Because cost is irrelevant when it is the "government's money"...
Click to expand...

I don't hear anyone saying that or even implying it.

The main point was that healthcare costs have been exponential, and yes, it's easier today to lose your life savings or go bankrupt if you are faced with a catastrophic injury or illness, and no, this is not conducive for the pursuit of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.....
 
Onceler said:
I don't hear anyone saying that or even implying it.

The main point was that healthcare costs have been exponential, and yes, it's easier today to lose your life savings or go bankrupt if you are faced with a catastrophic injury or illness, and no, this is not conducive for the pursuit of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.....
Click to expand...

And so your answer is to pass this burden off to the taxpayers? Don't do anything to address the costs, which is what drives people into bankruptcy... just pass it off to government to handle? This makes little to no sense at all, what is the purpose? To bankrupt America?

We've already established that people can and do pursue life, liberty and happiness, without government-run health care, and have been doing this for 230 years. Why do you keep wanting to make that invalid point? It has been refuted!!
 
Dixie said:
And so your answer is to pass this burden off to the taxpayers? Don't do anything to address the costs, which is what drives people into bankruptcy... just pass it off to government to handle? This makes little to no sense at all, what is the purpose? To bankrupt America?

We've already established that people can and do pursue life, liberty and happiness, without government-run health care, and have been doing this for 230 years. Why do you keep wanting to make that invalid point? It has been refuted!!
Click to expand...

What plan are you currently looking at that doesn't address costs?

As to the 2nd point, you clearly don't know anyone who has had to endure an unexpected illness or accident w/out insurance in MODERN DAY America.
 
Onceler said:
What plan are you currently looking at that doesn't address costs?

As to the 2nd point, you clearly don't know anyone who has had to endure an unexpected illness or accident w/out insurance in MODERN DAY America.
Click to expand...

I am looking at the CURRENT plans in both the House and the Senate.

Both seem to do nothing to address the soaring costs of health care. BOTH will add to the nations debt each year (if you include the Medicare/Medicaid fix the two chambers are trying to hide in a separate bill)

Please, if I am wrong... point out where they address the actual rise in health care costs
 
they say it will cost a trillion.
When have they ever not underestimated cost.
Republicans shouldn't be rejoicing, they are playing you like the flute. Sure they threw some crumbs back. But a trillion is a trillion, it's coming out of the hide of the middle class.
 
Onceler said:
I don't hear anyone saying that or even implying it.

The main point was that healthcare costs have been exponential, and yes, it's easier today to lose your life savings or go bankrupt if you are faced with a catastrophic injury or illness, and no, this is not conducive for the pursuit of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.....
Click to expand...
They have no urge to control costs, you can tell by their actions. When watching politicians you must see what they do, not what they say.
 
It's my understanding that the CBO projected cost cuts of up to $1 trillion, and that the plan would cost less than a trillion.

Why isn't anyone questioning Dixie's wild claim that this will cost "trillions & trillions"?
 
CBO said it would cost just under 900 billion with the 55 age in.
Again, when does the gov EVER underestimate cost?
 
Onceler said:
It's my understanding that the CBO projected cost cuts of up to $1 trillion, and that the plan would cost less than a trillion.

Why isn't anyone questioning Dixie's wild claim that this will cost "trillions & trillions"?
Click to expand...

LOL... The price tag is a JOKE! Don't you get that? You seriously believe we can effectively and efficiently treat 30 million extra Americans with free health care, for less than a trillion dollars???? That would really be some trick, if you could pull it off, but most people with any level of common sense, know this is a joke!

The Reid Bill, as it is structured, prolongs any real substantial costs for the first 10 years, most of the really expensive measures won't kick in for 12 years or so... this means, when the CBO does its analysis, it only looks at cost for the first 10 years, and doesn't factor in the actual REAL cost of the long-term program, which is substantially greater than even the most 'exaggerated' estimates now. This thing will cost TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS! And it will NOT fix the problems of cost or availability! It will adversely effect overall quality, it can't help but do that... 30 million more to serve, and 45% fewer professionals to serve them... how can it not effect quality?

Go back to the drawing board with this! Let's objectively look at THE PROBLEMS and find solutions to address those, instead of dismantling our entire health care system! Cost of insurance can be addressed by allowing interstate commerce for the insurance companies... why are liberals opposed to doing that? It would enable larger insurance companies to pool larger groups of individuals and provide lower rates competitively... why are you opposed to lowering insurance rates? You want it to be "more available?" ...offer incentives to doctors like we do with teachers... pay for their medical school if they open practice in poor areas... find market based solutions to the problem of availability. You want the cost of health care to be cheaper? Do something about runaway lawsuits and litigation, as well as unfunded federal mandates on health care professionals... find solutions to what is driving up the costs... There are many areas we can all agree the system needs to be fixed, but the system is not irreparable or impossible to fix.
 
compare any big entitlement program 20 years down the road. They generally cost 10 to 20 times projections.

Vastly increase the number of doctors, (lasik surgery has come down because it's not insurance controlled and the free market sets the price)
Vastly reduce the frivoulus lawsuits that dr face.

That will get you way closer than this fleecing the middle clas bill- ah health care bill will get you.
 
Onceler said:
It's my understanding that the CBO projected cost cuts of up to $1 trillion, and that the plan would cost less than a trillion.

Why isn't anyone questioning Dixie's wild claim that this will cost "trillions & trillions"?
Click to expand...

because his "wild claim" is more accurate than your "wild claim".......
 
Yurt said:
nice fail at addressing his point.....

you're good at that
Click to expand...

Nice jumping in at the end of the conversation which you haven't even read to try to stand up for some pathetic rightie & his one liner.

You're excellent at that. It's all you do.

:pke:
 
Onceler said:
You're really good at those one-liners.
Click to expand...

I can take no credit for it.....you asked a simple question, I gave an accurate answer......anyone who wasn't a brainless liberal could have done the same.....which makes it rather embarrassing that you didn't ask it as a rhetorical question, doesn't it......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top