GOP breaking ranks ....

#52
#52
"Cut" in Washington speak goes like this... You project a future cost that is say $5 trillion greater than now by growing at several times the growth of GDP, inflation, or any other meaningful... but obscured... standard. THEN you come up with a "plan" that has it grow at a slightly lower pace and voila... you can claim you've cut it.

The "Draconian" cuts that the Dems so effectively demagogued during the Clinton years were actually cuts in growth from about 7% to about 5%... still around double inflation.

Ryan (as is the norm) is beating Obama over the head with the trophy Obama has claimed for himself. There are no nor have there been any cuts proposed by Obama.

The conversation should be about getting gov't out of the healthcare business but politics won't allow it.
 
#53
#53
sjt18 said:
"Cut" in Washington speak goes like this... You project a future cost that is say $5 trillion greater than now by growing at several times the growth of GDP, inflation, or any other meaningful... but obscured... standard. THEN you come up with a "plan" that has it grow at a slightly lower pace and voila... you can claim you've cut it.

The "Draconian" cuts that the Dems so effectively demagogued during the Clinton years were actually cuts in growth from about 7% to about 5%... still around double inflation.

Ryan (as is the norm) is beating Obama over the head with the trophy Obama has claimed for himself. There are no nor have there been any cuts proposed by Obama.

The conversation should be about getting gov't out of the healthcare business but politics won't allow it.
Click to expand...


Other than the VA, the government is not in the health care biz. The government is in the paying for health care biz.

Most people aren't saving enough to eat when they retire, much less to pay $30,000 for bypass surgery.
 
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
Other than the VA, the government is not in the health care biz. The government is in the paying for health care biz.

Most people aren't saving enough to eat when they retire, much less to pay $30,000 for bypass surgery.
Click to expand...

the VA is a joke and is a perfect example of what could happen to the entire US healthcare system if Obama and company get their way.

Yes, the VA seems to be doing good work right now, but that is mainly due to the fact that the media spotlight has remained on it since casualties first started coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and Walter Reed Hospital, the VA's flagship, was shown to be a crumbling mess.
 
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
What about at 76?
Click to expand...

still much richer on average than people in their 20s or 30s. obviously you see net worth drop as people get older and deplete their savings. it isn't a coincidence that the baby boomers are leaving more money to their kids than any generation in american history.
 
#59
#59
The gov't pays for the health care of around 1/3 of all Americans. They force providers to pass costs for those patients onto those with private insurance. They impose tangles of bureaucratic red tape and liability laws that build unnecessary expense into the system.

I didn't say anything about people saving for old age healthcare. That would be the ideal but it isn't the current reality. Maybe one approach on this would be to allow people to put money into an MSA much like 401k. It would not fix the immediate problem but could alleviate the problem in 20 years or so.

But a voucher doesn't require people to choose between food and surgery. Just the opposite. The voucher is exchanged for the best insurance deal the person can get. PUTTING THE CONSUMER BACK INTO THE EQUATION WILL DRIVE COSTS DOWN. By comparing the cost/value of medicare and other gov't programs to private insurance... suggests the elderly will get better coverage at the same or lower costs.
 
#60
#60
MG1968 said:
the VA is a joke and is a perfect example of what could happen to the entire US healthcare system if Obama and company get their way.

Yes, the VA seems to be doing good work right now, but that is mainly due to the fact that the media spotlight has remained on it since casualties first started coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and Walter Reed Hospital, the VA's flagship, was shown to be a crumbling mess.
Click to expand...

VA quality would actually be well above what a nationalized system on that model would yield.
 
#61
#61
droski said:
still much richer on average than people in their 20s or 30s. obviously you see net worth drop as people get older and deplete their savings. it isn't a coincidence that the baby boomers are leaving more money to their kids than any generation in american history.
Click to expand...


Took me a second to figure out what you were driving at with your claim that old people have money.

Now I get it. :bad:
 
#62
#62
sjt18 said:
The gov't pays for the health care of around 1/3 of all Americans. They force providers to pass costs for those patients onto those with private insurance. They impose tangles of bureaucratic red tape and liability laws that build unnecessary expense into the system.
Click to expand...
This is false. There is no law forcing health care providers to set costs or shift costs to insurance or paying customers, nor is there any law forcing a provider to take Medicare or Medicaid; small and/or rural based care providers will get assistance against Medicare payment.

But a voucher doesn't require people to choose between food and surgery. Just the opposite. The voucher is exchanged for the best insurance deal the person can get. PUTTING THE CONSUMER BACK INTO THE EQUATION WILL DRIVE COSTS DOWN. By comparing the cost/value of medicare and other gov't programs to private insurance... suggests the elderly will get better coverage at the same or lower costs.
Click to expand...
Considering that providers aren't forced to take Medicare payments, the cost shifting will only cut down on a small, small portion, and again, merely shifting to a voucher program will do absolutely nothing to affect costs; and again, with the Ryan plan proposing to provide vouchers which increase in relation to the rise of CPI, which is a significantly slower rate than the average price of medical care, the purchasing power of those vouchers will decrease over time. This is a fact. Conversely, providing a voucher plan to replace Medicare which adjusts annually with the cost increases of health care, would be insolvent without measures to increase tax revenue. Even if you're of the opinion that changes in the top marginal tax rate do not provide any serious changes to tax revenue (which has historically proven not to be the case), the fact is that steps must be taken now to address the increasing cost of health care. Shifting payment for medical care away from public funding will not accomplish this.
 
#64
#64
GAVol said:
I've seen this act a million times.
Click to expand...

If the perception is there, it doesn't matter if it's true, it will hurt in the elections. Bottom line, from a political standpoint, the left wil and should continue to use that argument if it wants to have success in elections
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#65
#65
Agreed. I'm not arguing whether it is right or not, but that's the way a lot of people will see the topic.
 
#66
#66
VOLatile said:
We could get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we wouldn't have to cut so damn much...
Click to expand...

ahmen brother. this is crazyness. why they hell should we give up medicare and social security to build roads and bridges and keep thousands or troops in a country that hates us.

plane and simple. come home, go back to the tax rate that was in the 90's and our budget problems are as dead as osama bin laden..:salute:
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
Took me a second to figure out what you were driving at with your claim that old people have money.

Now I get it. :bad:
Click to expand...

what the hell are you talking about? net worth isn't a valid way to determine how much money you have? apparently we need to go obama and base it soley on income? i tell you what. give me $50 mil and i'll gladly make $20K a year for the rest of my life.
 
#69
#69
milohimself said:
This is false. There is no law forcing health care providers to set costs or shift costs to insurance or paying customers, nor is there any law forcing a provider to take Medicare or Medicaid; small and/or rural based care providers will get assistance against Medicare payment.


Considering that providers aren't forced to take Medicare payments, the cost shifting will only cut down on a small, small portion, and again, merely shifting to a voucher program will do absolutely nothing to affect costs; and again, with the Ryan plan proposing to provide vouchers which increase in relation to the rise of CPI, which is a significantly slower rate than the average price of medical care, the purchasing power of those vouchers will decrease over time. This is a fact. Conversely, providing a voucher plan to replace Medicare which adjusts annually with the cost increases of health care, would be insolvent without measures to increase tax revenue. Even if you're of the opinion that changes in the top marginal tax rate do not provide any serious changes to tax revenue (which has historically proven not to be the case), the fact is that steps must be taken now to address the increasing cost of health care. Shifting payment for medical care away from public funding will not accomplish this.
Click to expand...

I believe when SJT is talking about force; he means force of survival not legal force. You don't have to shift costs but if you operate below costs for very long you are out of business.

There is definitely cost shifting and many HC providers have a choice - cost shift and stay in business or don't cost shift and go out of business. The third choice is one that is more and more common - stop seeing new MCare/MCaid patients.
 
#71
#71
volinbham said:
I believe when SJT is talking about force; he means force of survival not legal force. You don't have to shift costs but if you operate below costs for very long you are out of business.

There is definitely cost shifting and many HC providers have a choice - cost shift and stay in business or don't cost shift and go out of business. The third choice is one that is more and more common - stop seeing new MCare/MCaid patients.
Click to expand...

I get it. Bottom line is I believe the two tier system doesn't work. Managed care has solved a lot of issues with the old fee for service system, but managed care models also have to rely on payment in the form of monthly premiums from the customer, and that model doesn't work unless everybody is playing ball.

Medicare and Medicaid reimbursing at lower rates is definitely an issue -- 'Medicaid mills' have popped up as a result, which is something I don't think anybody wants. Another big problem I've brought up numerous times is the 'ledge' with Medicaid. A sliding scale, like student loans would be much more effective.
 
#73
#73
milohimself said:
This is false. There is no law forcing health care providers to set costs or shift costs to insurance or paying customers, nor is there any law forcing a provider to take Medicare or Medicaid; small and/or rural based care providers will get assistance against Medicare payment.
Click to expand...
OK. So all of my doctors as well as my wife who worked for an insurance broker have lied to me.


Considering that providers aren't forced to take Medicare payments, the cost shifting will only cut down on a small, small portion, and again, merely shifting to a voucher program will do absolutely nothing to affect costs;
Click to expand...
Yes. It will. The consumer will choose the plan that offers the best coverage for the price. That will put pressure on insurers to pressure medical bills to their equillibrium.

The consumer will choose what they're willing to pay over and above the voucher. They will determine how large of a deductable they're willing to pay. They may well decide that they want 100% coverage on anything over say $5K but are willing to pay out of pocket for anything less. The consumer will have to make the choice often between paying less or keeping that doctor they're fond of... as it should be. Medical practices will be forced to eliminate inefficiencies and probably look for economies of scale by grouping together.

and again, with the Ryan plan proposing to provide vouchers which increase in relation to the rise of CPI, which is a significantly slower rate than the average price of medical care, the purchasing power of those vouchers will decrease over time.
Click to expand...
No. Not necessarily. Premiums do not go toward paying claims. Premiums are invested. The stock market much more closely mirrors healthcare inflation than does CPI.

The alternative is to just keep borrowing or simply passing those skyrocketing bills onto the taxpayer.

The best analogy here is that a voucher offers a way to go with the flow of the economy while the tax and spend way goes against the flow to the harm of both the economy and the beneficiary.
Shifting payment for medical care away from public funding will not accomplish this.
Click to expand...

Yes. It simply will. Virtually EVERYTHING that we have public funding for is more expensive than it would be if run by the private sector without gov't interference. There are things that we must have gov't do in spite of its inherent inefficiencies... health care isn't one we want or can afford.
 
#74
#74
milohimself said:
Nobody is arguing for nationalized care.
Click to expand...

Nobody? Several here are. Obama has certainly said publicly that he wants a single payer system. The healthcare law seems designed to force anyone who isn't a loyal party member into a gov't plan.
 
#75
#75
sjt18 said:
Nobody? Several here are. Obama has certainly said publicly that he wants a single payer system. The healthcare law seems designed to force anyone who isn't a loyal party member into a gov't plan.
Click to expand...
Hyperbole much? Should we expect gs-esque pictures of Obama with gold hammer and sickle chains from you next?

And I googled the quote in question. Obama said it on the campaign trail. If I had a nickel for every time a politician said something on the campaign trail that he didn't follow through or change his mind on...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top