Obama's Healthcare Nightmare

LSUAthletics · 07-16-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumborue

it is not urgent because it will take forever to fix. besides the best way to fix it (besides scrapping medicare and social security) is to get the economy roaring.

It wouldn't take forever to implement a deficit reduction plan that would begin to address the deficits immediately. The economy will never "roar" with these massive budget deficits.

red55 · 07-16-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUAthletics

If the democrats want to raise taxes on the rich to pay for universal health care then who are they going to tax to start paying off the national debt? How are we going to get a handle on the projected budget deficits?

Stabilize the economy and finish the wars, then steadily cut costs and increase revenues calculated to reduce the deficits and start posting surpluses. You reduce the national debt by posting budget surpluses and paying it down. We did this only 10 years ago. We have to do it again.

Conservatives say that costs must be slashed. Liberals say revenues must soar. Moderates say a little of each is easier to swallow and more likely to be successful. It worked for Clinton in the 90's. It can work again but it absolutely requires a robust economy which must be our immediate priority even if it means a few more years of deficits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumborue

it is not urgent because it will take forever to fix. besides the best way to fix it (besides scrapping medicare and social security) is to get the economy roaring.

I tend to agree. The national debt is an impending problem while the recession is an immediate one. Fixing the economy is essential in order to post surpluses to pay down the debt.

SabanFan · 07-16-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red55

Stabilize the economy and finish the wars, then steadily cut costs and increase revenues calculated to reduce the deficits and start posting surpluses. You reduce the national debt by posting budget surpluses and paying it down. We did this only 10 years ago. We have to do it again.

Conservatives say that costs must be slashed. Liberals say revenues must soar. Moderates say a little of each is easier to swallow and more likely to be successful. It worked for Clinton in the 90's. It can work again but it absolutely requires a robust economy which must be our immediate priority even if it means a few more years of deficits.

I tend to agree. The national debt is an impending problem while the recession is an immediate one. Fixing the economy is essential in order to post surpluses to pay down the debt.

Write down this date: 7/16/09

I agree completely.

gumborue · 07-16-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabanFan

Write down this date: 7/16/09

I agree completely.

o god! is this the same day that the mayan calendar stops?

LSUAthletics · 07-16-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red55

Stabilize the economy and finish the wars, then steadily cut costs and increase revenues calculated to reduce the deficits and start posting surpluses. You reduce the national debt by posting budget surpluses and paying it down. We did this only 10 years ago. We have to do it again.

The massive CBO deficit projections are based on the economy stabilizing. The expense of the wars is but a fraction of the projected annual budget deficits. Cut cost where? We see nothing but increased spending from this administration.

Quote:

Conservatives say that costs must be slashed. Liberals say revenues must soar. Moderates say a little of each is easier to swallow and more likely to be successful. It worked for Clinton in the 90's. It can work again but it absolutely requires a robust economy which must be our immediate priority even if it means a few more years of deficits.

How can we get to a "soaring" economy when the national debt is and will continue to have a slowing effect on the economy? Or is it your view this is not the case?

Quote:

I tend to agree. The national debt is an impending problem while the recession is an immediate one. Fixing the economy is essential in order to post surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health care is also an impending problem. I agree the economy should be a top priority. My original argument was that the deficit was more of a crisis than health care was.

gumborue · 07-16-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUAthletics

How can we get to a "soaring" economy when the national debt is and will continue to have a slowing effect on the economy? Or is it your view this is not the case?

the previous enormous debt under Reagan was worked through. not sure which came first though, debt reduction or growing economy

dont forget that high debt isnt all bad (it certainly is mostly bad. i dont want you to think i believe it is desirable). US consumer purchasing power goes down and a larger piece of the budget goes to pay the debt and interest but exports will benefit especially once the credit mess is sorted out.

red55 · 07-16-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUAthletics

The massive CBO deficit projections are based on the economy stabilizing. The expense of the wars is but a fraction of the projected annual budget deficits.

$534 Billion is a significant fraction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUAthletics

How can we get to a "soaring" economy when the national debt is and will continue to have a slowing effect on the economy?

The debt doesn't slow the economy. It is just a looming expense and a waste of $500 Billion in interest to bond-holders each year. The economic collapse was NOT due to the national debt in any way. It was due to the mortgage and bank collapses after the real estate bubble burst due to lax federal regulations under He-Who-Must-Not Be Named.

The economy has to get moving first to produce the surpluses needed to pay down the debt.

SabanFan · 07-16-2009, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red55

It was due to the mortgage and bank collapses after the real estate bubble burst due to lax federal regulations under He-Who-Must-Not Be Named.

Clinton? Frank? Dodd?

mctiger · 07-17-2009, 09:24 AM

According to Louisiana Conservative -dot-com (see link below) the "town hall meeting on the Obama Health Care Plan" is this Monday morning in Reserve. Its the first time I've seen the date, time and location announced, and I would call this rather short notice (article posted yesterday). LaCon.com is claiming that the White House is withholding pre-publicity on the meetings so they can control the attendance and insure that only pro-plan citizens attend. Since my TV station did not get a press release on the meeting, I called the White House Press Office and made the request this morning. So far, they have not responded. Has anyone else seen this information anywhere else?

Obama’s Not-So-Secret - Secret Town Hall Meeting. |

SabanFan · 07-17-2009, 09:47 AM

Hope? It's fading

Change? Yes. For the worst

Transparency: Don't make me laugh

LSUAthletics · 07-17-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red55

$534 Billion is a significant fraction.

Economic cost of the wars is projected to be "$144 billion in fiscal year 2009, $130 billion in 2010, and — in what the administration concedes are “placeholder estimates” — of $50 billion for 2011 and beyond."

In the best case scenario there will be a savings of about 90 billion annually starting in 2011. Again, this is the best case scenario and the projections may not work out if events cause the American military to undertake more operations than expected or to keep extra troops in Iraq. Even using the 90 billion annual savings it is but a small fraction of the CBO projected average annual trillion dollar budget deficits through 2019. I'm certain the CBO has already accounted for these savings in their projections anyway.

Your answer to my question about getting a handle on the projected deficits:

Quote:

"Stabilize the economy and finish the wars, then steadily cut costs and increase revenues calculated to reduce the deficits and start posting surpluses"

The CBO projections are based on an impending stabilized economy and as mentioned above the very best potential war savings is less than one tenth of the 1 trillion dollar annual projected budget deficits. I'll pose the question again. Cut what cost? Have any specific cuts in mind?

Quote:

The debt doesn't slow the economy. It is just a looming expense and a waste of $500 Billion in interest to bond-holders each year. The economic collapse was NOT due to the national debt in any way. It was due to the mortgage and bank collapses after the real estate bubble burst due to lax federal regulations under He-Who-Must-Not Be Named.

The debt slows the economy in many ways including destabilizing the financial markets, devaluing the dollar, and putting the assets of all Americans at risk through inflation. How can you possibly think it does not affect the economy when nearly 20% of total taxes go towards paying the interest on the federal debt? Absolutely no governmental services or benefits are delivered in return for nearly 20 percent of our total Federal tax bill. "These funds could be re-invested in the growth of our own business, but must be shoveled out instead simply to service the interest on the Federal debt. These substantial funds are diverted by Government fiat from potentially constructive economic investments in one's own enterprise into barren interest payments to the world of strangers who hold these obligations of the Treasury of the United States."

red55 · 07-17-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabanFan

The rebublicans cannot stop it. They don't have the votes. The American people need to make themselves heard.

Where have you been, Kemo sabe. We elected a man with a plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabanFan

Are we in the Soviet Union? I already bear the burden for my health care. And what about the burden that will be placed on working Americans by the cap and tax proposal?

What burden is this?

SabanFan · 07-18-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red55

What burden is this?

Where have you been, Kemo sabe?

houtiger · 07-18-2009, 09:06 AM

There is a healthcare crisis in america. Medicare expenses are growing and have been growing at 4 times the rate of inflation for decades. I think this is due to the fact that there are 2 paid lobbyists from healthcare providers (AMA, Big Pharma, HMO's, etc.) for every senator and representative in Wash. DC. Think about it.

The Medicare shortfall 20 years out, dwarfs the SS shortfall, by a factor of 3. Our 11 trillion US debt will grow to 50 trillion in 30 years (projection before the financial crisis) if we don't do something (and that debt will further reduce the value of the dollar along the way, which is the case for gold and holding some foreign stocks).

SF said he pays for his healthcare, but that's not exactly right. If he is still at AIG, he pays for PART of his healthcare, usually about 30% of a $1,000 per month family plan. That's about what I pay. The company is paying about 600-700 per month. That's a huge burden on companies. We have to stop the cost from accelerating at 4 times the inflation rate.

SF mentioned tort reform. My reading says it's a 30 billion a year issue, and solving it won't fix healthcare. We need bigger numbers.

The repubs passed prescription coverage under medicare, and forbade the govt. from negotiating for volume discounts on the drugs (payback for support from big pharma). We should be allowed to negotiate volume discounts, just like Wal Mart does. The bill was 650 billion for 5 years, we could get at least 200 billion out of that, or a 40 billion a year reduction.

The biggest thing to attack is probably end of life care. this is more than a quarter of medicare's 350 billion annual expenses, over 80 billion a year, for people in the last year of their life. We need some guidelines. My mother was not informed how near my aunt was to death, and she was told my aunt needed a tracheotomy, which was done 3 days before she died. Totally unnecessary.

Quote:

If you are dying in Miami, the last six months of your life might well look like this: You'll see doctors, mostly specialists, 46 times; spend more than six days in an intensive care unit and stand a 27% chance of dying in a hospital ICU. The tab for your doctor and hospital care will run just over $23,000.

But spend those last six months in Portland, Ore., and you'll go to the doctor 18 times, half of those visits with your primary care doctor, spend one day in intensive care and stand a 13% chance of dying in an ICU. You'll likely die at home, with the support of a hospice program. Total tab: slightly more than $14,000.

<snip>

"There's a tremendous opportunity for both improving quality and enhancing efficiency in the care of people with very serious illnesses at the end of life," says geriatrician Joanne Lynn, who spent much of her career at think tank RAND studying end-of-life care.

She says substantial progress could be made in slowing rising costs if the U.S. health system could find better ways to reduce hospitalizations for people at the end of life, such as providing more in-home services.

Portland and Miami reflect that tremendous variation among regions. The most expensive city out of 309 hospital referral regions is Manhattan, at a cost of $35,838 for the last six months; the least expensive is Wichita Falls, Texas, at $10,913.

Estimates show that about 27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life.

<snip>

Why is it more expensive to die in some areas of the country than others?

The number of doctors and hospital beds is part of it: The more there are, the more care a person gets. Also playing roles: the expectations of patients and the practice patterns of doctors.

Portland has fewer ICU beds and specialists per person than Miami, which is also more multicultural, with a greater variety of views on end-of-life medical care.

But experts on the end-of-life care say one main reason for the vast difference between the two cities may be that in Oregon, doctors, or staff at hospitals and hospices, encourage patients with life-threatening illnesses to talk about the end of life, what kind of medical care they want and where they want to die. The state has a history of such debate: Oregon residents have long supported palliative care, a term usually used to describe medical care for the terminally ill that focuses more on comfort treatments than cures. And, in 1994, voters there became the first in the nation to approve doctor-assisted suicide, a referendum signed into law in 1998.

"We have fewer hospitals and ICU beds than Miami does and, yes, that's a factor. But making a plan and how everyone supports you to have that plan is what makes the difference," says Susan Tolle, a medical doctor and director of the Center for Ethics in Health Care at Oregon Health & Science University.

<snip>

Complicating matters is that medicine often doesn't know what the most effective treatments are. And doctors are trained to save lives. As a result, some patients may be pushed into more than they want by a medical system that values doing something over doing nothing, even when futile.

"One of the things that frustrates us all is to see care being provided in an absolutely futile situation ... and doctors and hospitals are not accountable but are also being rewarded (financially) for that (futile care)," says John Santa, medical director for the Center for Evidence-Based Policy in Portland.

<snip>

She and others say there's not enough money to give everyone a treatment with a one-in-a-million chance of success. "None of us wants to bankrupt our community on desperate, long-shot treatments," Lynn says. "The question is, how do we build a sustainable health system?"

Those questions about what care to give and when to quit are deeply personal. A USA TODAY/Kaiser/ABC poll of 1,201 Americans taken by telephone in September found the public divided on the answers.

When asked if it is better to keep a terminally ill person alive as long as possible, regardless of the expense, or to make a judgment as to whether it's worth the expense, 48% said it's better to weigh the costs, compared with 40% who said to keep the person alive as long as possible, regardless of the cost.

Among those 65 and older, 60% said expense should be considered, compared with 28% who said cost should not enter the decision. The nationally representative poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Improving quality of care

Still, not everyone agrees that slowing spending at the end of life is a panacea for rapidly rising health costs. Such costs are driven by a host of factors, of which the amount spent in the last six months of life is but a part. "There are so many things that would result in very substantial resources being saved, and (end-of-life care), on my list of things, is not at the top," says Santa.

Things closer to the top of his list include unnecessary back surgeries, hysterectomies and what he calls an over-reliance on some expensive brand-name drugs when generics would work just as well.

Debate surrounds end-of-life health care costs - USATODAY.com

SabanFan · 07-18-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houtiger

SF said he pays for his healthcare, but that's not exactly right. If he is still at AIG, he pays for PART of his healthcare, usually about 30% of a $1,000 per month family plan.

I clearly stated that's what I pay. I assumed it's understood that the employer kicks in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by houtiger

SF mentioned tort reform. My reading says it's a 30 billion a year issue, and solving it won't fix healthcare. We need bigger numbers.

I said we should start with tort reform.

tirk · 07-18-2009, 10:04 AM

is there a houston, california?

red55 · 07-18-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabanFan

Where have you been, Kemo sabe?

It was simple question. martin has maintained that cap and trade is bad for business. Now you are saying that cap and trade is a burden on the working man. How exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabanFan

I said we should start with tort reform.

Sounds good to me. So what reform would be best and how the hell do we get it done with all three branches of government run by lawyers?

It will be easier to get rid of the lobbyists on the Hill. It will be easier to get rid of mosquitos in Cameron Parish.

houtiger · 07-18-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabanFan

I said we should start with tort reform.

We have had tort reform here in Tx.

Quote:

Tort Reform: Show Us Results
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

I wrote in the last post about costs to health care caused by “defensive medicine.” These are unnecessary tests and procedures ordered by doctors only because they fear medical malpractice suits. In theory, “defensive medicine” adds considerably to the overall cost of health care, and in theory, “tort reform” that caps malpractice awards should reduce this cost.

If you look, you can find no end of testimonials from doctors saying that their practices would be much less costly to patients and insurance companies if it weren’t for the threat of lawsuits. And I have to assume that these doctors believe what they are saying.

But the problem with the “defensive medicine” theory is that states that have passed “tort reform” laws have no decreases in health care costs to show for it.

Jim Landers writes for the Dallas Morning News that since Texas passed tough tort reform laws in 2003, the costs of medical malpractice premiums paid by doctors have fallen by more than 30 percent. This indicates there is a real reduction in malpractice suits. However, Landers writes,
“But the cost of health care still is rising. Consumers are paying higher insurance premiums, which continue to escalate faster than earnings.

“And according to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy, Medicare spending in Texas rose 24 percent in the three years after the state capped malpractice awards. In Dallas, it went up 27 percent during the same period, 2003 to 2006.”

Some are saying it is too soon to see results from decreasing “defensive medicine” practices. But it has been six years since the most recent Texas tort reform policies became law.

Landers continues, “A team at the University of Alabama looked into this last year. Their survey of studies related to malpractice insurance, defensive medicine and consumer health insurance premiums looked at 27 states with limits on non-economic damages, including Texas. …

“… Their conclusion – “Tort reforms have not led to health care cost savings for consumers” – was published in the December issue of Health Sciences Review.

“‘It’s had a really small effect, or else it doesn’t seem to change defensive medicine,’ said Michael Morrisey, a professor of health economics and health insurance and the director of the university’s Lister Hill Center for Health Policy.”

Landers also notes, “Families USA, a consumer advocate group in Washington, found health care premiums in Texas increased 86.8 percent from 2000 to 2007.”

Tort Reform: Show Us Results | Mesothelioma and the Politics of Asbestos Litigation

My experience tends to corroborate this article. When I broke my wrist last year, I was in the hospital for 6 hours; had a 90 minute surgery. Un-negotiated bill, 16K to hospital, 4K to the surgeon. Negotiated bill was 4K to the hospital and 1K to the dr.; cost me a grand out of pocket. Anyone wonder why such a large discrepancy, where the grossest largest bill is given to the poorest (ostensibly, i.e. "uninsured") and the lowest bill to the middle class insured person. I think its industry intimidation, to scare the bejesus out of every person with the slightest chance to possibly afford health insurance to sign up and pay. They'll take your money when you're healthy, then find a way to drop you when you get sick, if you're not in a company plan. It optimizes their profit, and that's all the insurance companies are looking for.

SabanFan · 07-18-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red55

It was simple question. martin has maintained that cap and trade is bad for business. Now you are saying that cap and trade is a burden on the working man. How exactly?

The consumer (working man) always bears the brunt of increased costs to businesses. Their costs are passed along. Estimates of increased energy costs range from $850 to $2000 per family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by red55

Sounds good to me. So what reform would be best and how the hell do we get it done with all three branches of government run by lawyers?

I didn't say it could be done. I said it should be done. If you'll recall, I also said that the politicians won't F with the lawyers.

Tort reform should include a cap on general damges and severe penalties for frivolous lawsuits. I'd define frivolous as one that you lose.

red55 · 07-18-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabanFan

The consumer (working man) always bears the brunt of increased costs to businesses. Their costs are passed along. Estimates of increased energy costs range from $850 to $2000 per family.

Whose estimates are those? According to Rep. Dave Camp, of the House Ways and Means Committee, the highest net cost will be on fourth income quintile households (the 60th to 80th wealthiest percentiles) - $340 dollars per year. Middle income quintile households will see a net cost of $235, second quintile just $40, while the highest quintile will see their costs rise by $235. The lowest income quintile will see costs go down by $40.

These are far smaller numbers, less than $350 bucks a year for high-income people.

07-17-2009, 09:24 AM	#29
mctiger #9, best QB in the world Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Morgan City Posts: 3,503	Re: Obama's Healthcare Nightmare According to Louisiana Conservative -dot-com (see link below) the "town hall meeting on the Obama Health Care Plan" is this Monday morning in Reserve. Its the first time I've seen the date, time and location announced, and I would call this rather short notice (article posted yesterday). LaCon.com is claiming that the White House is withholding pre-publicity on the meetings so they can control the attendance and insure that only pro-plan citizens attend. Since my TV station did not get a press release on the meeting, I called the White House Press Office and made the request this morning. So far, they have not responded. Has anyone else seen this information anywhere else? Obama’s Not-So-Secret - Secret Town Hall Meeting. \| __________________ This space for rent.

07-17-2009, 09:47 AM	#30
SabanFan The voice of reason Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Breaux Bridge, LA Posts: 21,064	Re: Obama's Healthcare Nightmare Hope? It's fading Change? Yes. For the worst Transparency: Don't make me laugh __________________ A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. -George Bernard Shaw

07-18-2009, 10:04 AM	#36
tirk im the lyrical jessejames Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: work Posts: 20,169	Re: Obama's Healthcare Nightmare is there a houston, california? __________________ Am I getting smart with you? How would you know?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)