part of the reason health care costs so much

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?

its not that simple. I currently pay about $80 for my premium and my company pays about $250/300 or so. take that away, how much will my taxes go up? what business taxes go up as well?

and what about the people who maintain a healthy lifestyle and get an insurance plan that covers their needs. for example, a insurance rate of like $20 a month that yields a really high deducible. now, you want to raise their taxes to what?

and what about those who during tough times will temporarily cancel their insurance to save money and live a healthy lifestyle. I did that for a few years while I was out of college. but you want to take away that option for me.

and what happens when there are cost overruns. has the government ever been on budget with a program? no. but somehow they will start now? assuming they dont, how do you pay for it? raise taxes, print money, borrow?

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...

they aren't cute. they really lame and immature.

inmytree wrote:

what was your question again...?

go read it. or dont bother. you've proven you aren't capable of intelligent debate.

I told you, urine and corn flakes don't mix...but then again you never bother to listen to anyone other than yourself...as others have said, your question have been answered...however, since you can't comprehend those answers, you assume they were not answered...apparently that's super "intelligent" thing to do...

and you're a confusing fella. first you compliment me then you try to hurt my feelings by saying I'm immature, lame, and that I'm not intelligent...I suppose personal attacks are part of "intelligent debate"...of which you seem to so desperately want...yet you offer none...

well, you can always cling to the "we can't afford it but I offer nothing other than we can't afford it" argument...that seems to working just fine...

I asked you a direct question about cost of UHC. you offered nothing but insults and immature one liners. come back when you are ready to act like an adult.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.

fantastic! problem solved! just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable.

actually, that is EXACTLY what it means........
and we're not talking clipping coupons here...we're talking BILLIONS, perhaps more.....in savings...
you don't see it, idk what else to tell ya.

using all caps doesnt mean its true. even with cost savings, all estimates point to the cost of UHC in the trillions. I can all cap it for ya if you want.

this outlines many cost options and its a case FOR it.

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

I told you, urine and corn flakes don't mix...but then again you never bother to listen to anyone other than yourself...as others have said, your question have been answered...however, since you can't comprehend those answers, you assume they were not answered...apparently that's super "intelligent" thing to do...

more insults. I can comprehend answers. show me where they are? and besides, I asked you a direct question.

inmytree wrote:

and you're a confusing fella. first you compliment me then you try to hurt my feelings by saying I'm immature, lame, and that I'm not intelligent...I suppose personal attacks are part of "intelligent debate"...of which you seem to so desperately want...yet you offer none...

they aren't personal attacks on you. they are observations. your answer to my direct question about cost of UHC was something about piss and corn flakes. thats lame and immature is it not?

inmytree wrote:

well, you can always cling to the "we can't afford it but I offer nothing other than we can't afford it" argument...that seems to working just fine...

I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.

jlew24asu

a question. why are 45 million uninsured in this country?

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

[


I asked you a direct question about cost of UHC. you offered nothing but insults and immature one liners. come back when you are ready to act like an adult.

of all people...which here means: of all people on this board to have the balls to tell someone else to act like an adult, yet that same person resorts to personal attacks when they have nothing else to offer...as for you cost question, it's been answered...and why would I bother to take the time to rehash it when you already have your mind made up...

you make like someone is proposing a bad thing...I wonder what your stance would have been back in the day when roads and infrastructure were being built..."paved roads?!?!, we can't afford it!!!, bridges?!?!...we don't need no stinking bridges, people can swim, screw 'em if they can't"....

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?

its not that simple. I currently pay about $80 for my premium and my company pays about $250/300 or so. take that away, how much will my taxes go up? what business taxes go up as well?

and what about the people who maintain a healthy lifestyle and get an insurance plan that covers their needs. for example, a insurance rate of like $20 a month that yields a really high deducible. now, you want to raise their taxes to what?

and what about those who during tough times will temporarily cancel their insurance to save money and live a healthy lifestyle. I did that for a few years while I was out of college. but you want to take away that option for me.

and what happens when there are cost overruns. has the government ever been on budget with a program? no. but somehow they will start now? assuming they dont, how do you pay for it? raise taxes, print money, borrow?

yes, everyone's taxes will go up to cover the costs. how much - how can we know for sure?
lucky you with your costs....many of us aren't so lucky. i pay in way more than that, and our prices just went up again. perhaps with taxes, some will go up some, some others down, 'even out' the costs a bit....idk.

as to the person and the healthy lifestyle...hate to break it to ya, healthy people get cancer too ya know. so sure, while you can choose to play that roulette, long-term, it's unwise....so yes...yet again, you are correct...you'd have to pay in for healthcare whether you want to or not. kinda like i pay a lot of money for education even tho idon't have children. to me, both are a big part of civilized society....education and healthcare for all.


so it DOES all come down to you wanting to keep your 'choice' of having coverage or not having coverage, etc....not having the government force you to pay towards your healthcare or of others, etc. and hey, you're absolutely right....we ARE discussing taking away that choice from you or anyone. many of us are a-ok with it. you are not. we shall see what the majority really wants and what gets implmented. it's all we can do, let our representatives know our desires, and voice them.


in the long-term, many of us do see how, collectively...it IS in our OWN best interest...as individuals and as a collective community, to have ALL our citizens have access to healthcare. study after study proves just how cost-effective preventative healthcare is, how it improves longevity by preventing and/or catching diseases early....all of these things will improve quality of life, lifespan, and yes....keep our collective healthcare costs down. why is it do you think that we, with our private insurance, have some of THE highest healthcare costs, per person, than elsehwere? and it certainly isn't our 'quality of care'...it's our profit margins...and yea, our prohibitve costs linked to those profits ANd to the costs of not everyone having preventative medicine, getting sick, not getting the early/cheaper preventions or treatments...and it getting out of hand. and even amongst those who DO take care of their health, they too benefit...b/c they too can get sick out of no where.....and they would be more apt to go for regular check-ups, hopefully catching some of these diseases early...if they know they always have coverage. i know quite a few healthy-lifestyle folks, struck with cancer, for example. so yea....we ARE talking about taking away your choice to say no to healthcare, b/c some of us believe it's for the best for us all to have healthcare......





jlew......obviously there are costs....and surely in the trillions. however, that still doesn't mean we can't afford it. there will be savings, there will be costs...no one, including myself, has said otherwise.


and this....

jlew wrote:

I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.

somehow i missed this specific data too. however, i have heard this argument before. yep, we're trillions in debt and yes we would have to raise taxes. agreed. however, this does not mean we cannot afford it. it's been explained a few times, just how we could possibly afford it. you simply don't believe it. we don't need to borrow more $$$ or print more $$4 to make it happen...but you bet....taxes will be raised. however, i am a-ok with paying my $$$ towards a heathcare tax and healthcare for all, for life, rather than what we have now.....lots of my healthcare $$$ NOT going to healthcare, but to profits.

polaris_x

the US currently spends the most on health care with the least results ... it is my opinion that this entire debate can be summarized as follows:

Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.

The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money; the only reason bovine growth hormone gets FDA approval in US and not in any other western country is for the same reason, corporations control the gov't so they can profit. Healthcare is no different.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

fantastic! problem solved! just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable.

actually, that is EXACTLY what it means........
and we're not talking clipping coupons here...we're talking BILLIONS, perhaps more.....in savings...
you don't see it, idk what else to tell ya.

using all caps doesnt mean its true. even with cost savings, all estimates point to the cost of UHC in the trillions. I can all cap it for ya if you want.

this outlines many cost options and its a case FOR it.

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

did you actually REREAD...yep, caps again.....your statement:

just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable



seriously?
do you not see it?


if i save an extra $100 a month on my utility bill.....my utilities, therefore my home, becomes more affordable to me. i now have that extra $100 to put towards future utilities, my home, my savings, whatever. same thing with healthcare. if we cut out the FOR PROFIT nature of healthcare...savings of probably billions or more, i now have more $$$ to put towards....healthcare! the $$$ is still there, it's just not going to stockholders...it's going toward healthcare!



you keep saying UHC would cost billions....what do you think healthcare costs NOW? you think it is cheaper now? it might be for you....but it's not for the nation. so if we can payu it in to insurance..we can pay it into taxes....and without that profit margin, hopefully our costs would be less, not more. i just don't see how you don't see this. you don't LIKE it or don't want it...i get it....but how you think we 'can't afford' it....we already do, somehow....

decides2dream

polaris_x wrote:

the US currently spends the most on health care with the least results ... it is my opinion that this entire debate can be summarized as follows:

Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.

The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money; the only reason bovine growth hormone gets FDA approval in US and not in any other western country is for the same reason, corporations control the gov't so they can profit. Healthcare is no different.

EXACTLY.
that is the biggest obstacle to UHC.
many have said the same.
it's not the 'cost' of the healthcare...it's getting rid of the corporate involvement!

jlew24asu

polaris_x wrote:

the US currently spends the most on health care with the least results ... it is my opinion that this entire debate can be summarized as follows:

Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.

wrong. you pay $150 because that is what people are willing to spend for a high quality product. if Nike shoes cost $15,000 per pair, no one would buy them. if they were sold for $10 a pair, the quality would not be as good.

polaris_x wrote:

The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money;

:roll:

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... y-not.html

For Immediate Release:

July 17, 2009

CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill

Washington, D.C. -- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.

Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion, coupled with the $583 billion revenue package reported today by the House Committee on Ways and Means, fully finance the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform, which will provide affordable health care coverage for 97% of Americans.

"This fulfills the strong commitment of the President and House leadership to enact health reform on a deficit-neutral basis," said Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and Chairman George Miller. "The reforms included in this legislation will help control health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage to all Americans in a fiscally-responsible manner."

The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the "donut" hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill’s long-term reform of Medicare’s physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory "pay go" legislation that is pending in the House.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?

its not that simple. I currently pay about $80 for my premium and my company pays about $250/300 or so. take that away, how much will my taxes go up? what business taxes go up as well?

and what about the people who maintain a healthy lifestyle and get an insurance plan that covers their needs. for example, a insurance rate of like $20 a month that yields a really high deducible. now, you want to raise their taxes to what?

and what about those who during tough times will temporarily cancel their insurance to save money and live a healthy lifestyle. I did that for a few years while I was out of college. but you want to take away that option for me.

and what happens when there are cost overruns. has the government ever been on budget with a program? no. but somehow they will start now? assuming they dont, how do you pay for it? raise taxes, print money, borrow?

yes, everyone's taxes will go up to cover the costs. how much - how can we know for sure?
lucky you with your costs....many of us aren't so lucky. i pay in way more than that, and our prices just went up again. perhaps with taxes, some will go up some, some others down, 'even out' the costs a bit....idk.

as to the person and the healthy lifestyle...hate to break it to ya, healthy people get cancer too ya know. so sure, while you can choose to play that roulette, long-term, it's unwise....so yes...yet again, you are correct...you'd have to pay in for healthcare whether you want to or not. kinda like i pay a lot of money for education even tho idon't have children. to me, both are a big part of civilized society....education and healthcare for all.


so it DOES all come down to you wanting to keep your 'choice' of having coverage or not having coverage, etc....not having the government force you to pay towards your healthcare or of others, etc. and hey, you're absolutely right....we ARE discussing taking away that choice from you or anyone. many of us are a-ok with it. you are not. we shall see what the majority really wants and what gets implmented. it's all we can do, let our representatives know our desires, and voice them.


in the long-term, many of us do see how, collectively...it IS in our OWN best interest...as individuals and as a collective community, to have ALL our citizens have access to healthcare. study after study proves just how cost-effective preventative healthcare is, how it improves longevity by preventing and/or catching diseases early....all of these things will improve quality of life, lifespan, and yes....keep our collective healthcare costs down. why is it do you think that we, with our private insurance, have some of THE highest healthcare costs, per person, than elsehwere? and it certainly isn't our 'quality of care'...it's our profit margins...and yea, our prohibitve costs linked to those profits ANd to the costs of not everyone having preventative medicine, getting sick, not getting the early/cheaper preventions or treatments...and it getting out of hand. and even amongst those who DO take care of their health, they too benefit...b/c they too can get sick out of no where.....and they would be more apt to go for regular check-ups, hopefully catching some of these diseases early...if they know they always have coverage. i know quite a few healthy-lifestyle folks, struck with cancer, for example. so yea....we ARE talking about taking away your choice to say no to healthcare, b/c some of us believe it's for the best for us all to have healthcare......





jlew......obviously there are costs....and surely in the trillions. however, that still doesn't mean we can't afford it. there will be savings, there will be costs...no one, including myself, has said otherwise.


and this....

jlew wrote:

I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.

somehow i missed this specific data too. however, i have heard this argument before. yep, we're trillions in debt and yes we would have to raise taxes. agreed. however, this does not mean we cannot afford it. it's been explained a few times, just how we could possibly afford it. you simply don't believe it. we don't need to borrow more $$$ or print more $$4 to make it happen...but you bet....taxes will be raised. however, i am a-ok with paying my $$$ towards a heathcare tax and healthcare for all, for life, rather than what we have now.....lots of my healthcare $$$ NOT going to healthcare, but to profits.

at least you recognize taxes will go up for everyone and you surprisingly care to no end how much that will be. you also recognize my choices will be eliminated. not the American way

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... y-not.html

this is talking about the current bill in congress. not UHC. try to keep up

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

EXACTLY.
that is the biggest obstacle to UHC.
many have said the same.
it's not the 'cost' of the healthcare...it's getting rid of the corporate involvement!

how about regulated the insurance industry instead of eliminating it?

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

at least you recognize taxes will go up for everyone and you surprisingly care to no end how much that will be. you also recognize my choices will be eliminated. not the American way

seriously...you argue round and round an issue...instead of simply focusing on what TRULY bothers you about it. THIS is your issue. and i have said from day one of COURSE taxes will go up - duh! but more than likely, my actual out of pocket costs won't...they could even be cheaper......who knows? all i DO know is the ideal of EVERYone having health coverage, every single citizen, for LIFE....is worth it. as i said, i see it in the same light as education, and i personlly believe it is our responsibility to have education and healthcare access for ALL. and actually...it IS the american way, if it is deemed the will of the people.



why bother with the insurance industry?
we don't need a middleman. i don't think there is any need to have a for profit nature within the healthcare system. i personally do think it should be a governmental system. again, where you and i disagree. why should some stockholder benefit from my healthcare costs? no thanks. stocks are for products...i don't think healthcare should be a product.


face it, you and i see this fundamentally in a differnt light. i don't have aproblem with that. the only thing i 'argue' is when you say it's impossible to fund and so on.




and yea....doesn;t it seem like right now, the plan IS to regulate it somehow? that's how we're starting anyway, and i'm good with that. it's a step in the right the direction. however, i think UHC is the ideal goal.....you don't.....we shall see, in time, what all of america wants.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... y-not.html

this is talking about the current bill in congress. not UHC. try to keep up

hey, what's with the cute one liners...?

anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...

I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

hey, what's with the cute one liners...?

anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...

I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...

this bill and UHC are two vastly different things.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

seriously...you argue round and round an issue...instead of simply focusing on what TRULY bothers you about it. THIS is your issue.

um yes. cost, lose of choices, and lowered quality of care have always been my concerns. why do you sound surprised?

decides2dream wrote:

and i have said from day one of COURSE taxes will go up - duh! but more than likely, my actual out of pocket costs won't...they could even be cheaper......who knows? all i DO know is the ideal of EVERYone having health coverage, every single citizen, for LIFE....is worth it. as i said, i see it in the same light as education, and i personlly believe it is our responsibility to have education and healthcare access for ALL. and actually...it IS the american way, if it is deemed the will of the people.

higher taxes are out of pocket costs.

decides2dream wrote:

why bother with the insurance industry?
we don't need a middleman. i don't think there is any need to have a for profit nature within the healthcare system. i personally do think it should be a governmental system. again, where you and i disagree. why should some stockholder benefit from my healthcare costs? no thanks. stocks are for products...i don't think healthcare should be a product.

I understand where you are coming from here. but I dont think the government is any better and far worse actually at providing a high quality product.

decides2dream wrote:

face it, you and i see this fundamentally in a differnt light. i don't have aproblem with that. the only thing i 'argue' is when you say it's impossible to fund and so on.

nothing is impossible if you raise taxes, borrow, and print money. doesnt mean its the right thing to do

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

hey, what's with the cute one liners...?

anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...

I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...

this bill and UHC are two vastly different things.

I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option (a gov't run program), then how can we pay for UHC (a gov't run program)...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option (a gov't run program).. oh my, does that mean UHC (a gov't run program) is actually attainable and affordable...