Guess what Greece had to give up to get bailed out?

[quote name='speedracer']Someone needs to tell Canada they're doomed. Oh wait, the Economist just did a piece on how they are by orders of magnitude the best positioned western economy in the world. Obviously that's impossible because of teh healf cair. If only someone were to look at the best performing and worst performing economies and compare those, *MY GOD*, I bet there'd be qualitative differences![/QUOTE]

Some would argue that Canada is in relatively good economic shape because their budget is under control.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...s-at-almost-one-week-high-on-budget-view.html

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty anticipated in March that Canada’s budget deficit will narrow to C$1.80 billion in 2014, from a record C$53.8 billion last year.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Crotch or Mike can comment on how this was accomplished, and how we beggars from just to the south can do the same.
 
1) Does prince know one single blessed thing about the IMF?

2) I have yet to see a non pants-on-head source saying Greece has to "give up" their entire healthcare system.

3) Does prince ever get tired of being an equivocating weasel?
 
[quote name='Knoell']hey all I'm saying is I told you so. Costs are going up. Government is spending more than it said it would. And hospital care is going to be overrun. But its not that bad right? Other countries do it right!

Also you keep bringing up the 7% per year, when last year it was 4% overall cost growth. 4% was a lower year, but have you done any research to substantiate that the 7%, and 4% are even comparable in the same terms to the 1% growth?[/QUOTE]

The 7% is not a law, but rather an average over the last 20-30 years. While health care costs only increasing by 4% (not verified) is a step in the right direction, it occurred during a year (2009) of overall negative economic growth.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Tem...0001.png?2c5f8611-6c28-4df5-b247-b87def32322c

United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000001.png


If health care costs continued to grow at only 4% for next 10 years and the government wasn't borrowing record amounts of money to keep the economy afloat, you would have something and I would be damn opposed to any government takeover of health care.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, but it's preferable (IMO) to keep it in the black and have a rainy day fund than to have to jack up taxes everytime the economy takes a down turn, or a war eats into tax revenue etc.

Just because it's public ran doesn't mean that it can't be self sufficient. Taxes will have to increase overtime to keep pace with inflation probably, but they should at least strive to keep it in the black with a rainy day fund to prevent random tax hikes when other segments of the economy hit a down turn or there's an unforeseen jump in health care costs etc.[/QUOTE]

For the economic downturn, somewhat. However, there is an understanding that deficits occur during economic contractions. During economic expansion, you pay off the recession debt. Of course, this never happens in the real world. For wars, I like the idea of people choosing between their prescriptions versus elective wars.

If the health care costs are kept in line with overall inflation of the whole economy, taxes won't need to go up. If health care costs continue to outpace overall inflation, you have a problem that higher taxes won't fix.

As far as a rainy day fund, it would be akin to SS trust fund that is raided every year.
 
running the health insurance system is not the same as running the 'health-care system'. We know he was (is?) still in favor of the first, but I don't see proof of the second.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The 7% is not a law, but rather an average over the last 20-30 years. While health care costs only increasing by 4% (not verified) is a step in the right direction, it occurred during a year (2009) of overall negative economic growth.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Tem...0001.png?2c5f8611-6c28-4df5-b247-b87def32322c

United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000001.png


If health care costs continued to grow at only 4% for next 10 years and the government wasn't borrowing record amounts of money to keep the economy afloat, you would have something and I would be damn opposed to any government takeover of health care.[/QUOTE]

But what I am saying is that the 1% growth in costs is not 1% by itself but 1% on top of what the projected growth in costs was before the health care bill. So in effect 5% or 8%.
 
[quote name='Knoell']But what I am saying is that the 1% growth in costs is not 1% by itself but 1% on top of what the projected growth in costs was before the health care bill. So in effect 5% or 8%.[/QUOTE]

Before Msut wakes up and corrects several people for the umpteenth time, let's pretend you're right.

How many people are going to be covered before Obamacare and what is the cost?

How many people are going to be covered after Obamacare and what is the cost?

#people covered before Obamacare = x

#people covered after Obamacare = y

cost before Obamacare = z

cost after Obamacare = 1.08z

cost per person before Obamacare = z/x

cost per person after Obamacare = 1.08z/y

x < y

Plug in values for x and y.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Before Msut wakes up and corrects several people for the umpteenth time, let's pretend you're right.

How many people are going to be covered before Obamacare and what is the cost?

How many people are going to be covered after Obamacare and what is the cost?

#people covered before Obamacare = x

#people covered after Obamacare = y

cost before Obamacare = z

cost after Obamacare = 1.08z

cost per person before Obamacare = z/x

cost per person after Obamacare = 1.08z/y

x < y

Plug in values for x and y.[/QUOTE]

So I have a better question. Lets say there is about 275 million people on health insurance right now. 50 million dont have it. How are you going to say that adding 35 million people to the health care system, is only going to add 1% to total health care expenditures? that is adding 18% to the total health care recipients and yet only 1% to the cost.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It doesn't prove that, nor was that what the OP said. The OP asserted that public health care contributed to Greece's situation. From what you posted, obviously you don't think that's true. I disagree, and I think at least the IMF agrees with me, since they are asking Greece to give up the system as a prerequisite for being bailed out.[/QUOTE]

Greece spent $70-105 billion on health care during a time its debt increased $250 billon. At first glance, health care contributed to 28-42% of the problem. However, the money wasn't spent on temporary tattoos and lap dances. It was spent on hospital stay, surgeries, antibiotics, vaccines, etc. Regardless of it being a public or private system, those expenses were going to happen. As far as the IMF, they just want Greece to pay its debts. I won't go off into Tinfoilhatistan, the IMF genuinely doesn't care about anything else.

[quote name='elprincipe'] How kind of you. :D[/QUOTE]

The alternative is being completely dismissive and insulting.

[quote name='elprincipe'] Yes, it will do both of those things. And it's already being prepared by many companies. "If you like the health care you have, you can keep it." What a crock of shit. Yes, and Obama doesn't want to run the health-care system, just like he doesn't want to run the automobile industry. Right. Damn my lying eyes.[/QUOTE]

Obamacare isn't forcing insurance companies to raise their premiums while posting record profits. That's just greed on the part of the insurance companies. An intelligent insurance company would view Obamacare as an opportunity to reform itself and make itself more attractive than a single payer system. But they're going to screw the consumer as hard as possible to force Big Gubmint to enforce the general welfare clause.

[quote name='elprincipe'] It's in addition to the anticipated increase, not in place of it. Costs are expected to rise that much more than they would have. This is not a positive.[/QUOTE]

Refer to the 8:06AM post for the time being.

[quote name='elprincipe'] Let me get this straight. The argument that has been made by the left all through the health-care debate is that health-care costs would decrease because less people would visit emergency rooms under the new law (never mind that the opposite happened in Massachusetts when a similar law was put into effect). Now you are telling me that health-care costs will decrease because emergency rooms will be so overcrowded people will leave instead of waiting for care. Does not compute.[/QUOTE]

The ER isn't the end all and be all of health care. If an ER is getting clogged with people with minor issues and insurance, you build an urgent care nearby and treat them at a much lower cost than the ER. If an ER is getting clogged with people with minor issues and no insurance, you have the American health care system before Obamacare. If you have more people without insurance after Obamacare, you have a bunch of companies sitting a brand new pile of money by shafting their employees. Said companies will wish for the old days after more changes are enacted.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So I have a better question. Lets say there is about 275 million people on health insurance right now. 50 million dont have it. How are you going to say that adding 35 million people to the health care system, is only going to add 1% to total health care expenditures? that is adding 18% to the total health care recipients and yet only 1% to the cost.[/QUOTE]

Your source argues that overall costs increase 1% even after increasing the overall number of insured by 18%.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How are you going to say that adding 35 million people to the health care system, is only going to add 1% to total health care expenditures? that is adding 18% to the total health care recipients and yet only 1% to the cost.[/QUOTE]
Seriously man, it's been explained about 100 times. The savings have been described in excruciating detail by every liberal in the country. We're over a year past the beginning of the debate and over a month past the bill being signed. If you still don't get that most basic feature by now, you're just not going to get it.

At some point, shouldn't you ask yourself why you don't understand? Msut only calls me an idiot so many times before I go back and check my math and realize I actually was being an idiot.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Your source argues that overall costs increase 1% even after increasing the overall number of insured by 18%.[/QUOTE]

And I am asking is that really logical?

It will be much worse than 1% if we do not make the $500 billion dollar cuts to medicare that I bet you they don't make.

Simply put, whether you are for this bill or not, it isnt lowering health care costs.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Seriously man, it's been explained about 100 times. The savings have been described in excruciating detail by every liberal in the country. We're over a year past the beginning of the debate and over a month past the bill being signed. If you still don't get that most basic feature by now, you're just not going to get it.

At some point, shouldn't you ask yourself why you don't understand? Msut only calls me an idiot so many times before I go back and check my math and realize I actually was being an idiot.[/QUOTE]

explain it to me one more time. I bet you cant.
 
[quote name='Knoell']And I am asking is that really logical?

It will be much worse than 1% if we do not make the $500 billion dollar cuts to medicare that I bet you they don't make.

Simply put, whether you are for this bill or not, it isnt lowering health care costs.[/QUOTE]

What do you want me to do? I used your source and your interpretation and still proved you wrong.

Do you want me to say you're right just so you'll feel better?

Should I just say there is no possible way to rein in health care costs through public intervention?

Should I just say we have to accept whatever private insurance can provide and we must accommodate them at every turn so their substandard service to the public at large may not be as substandard?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What do you want me to do? I used your source and your interpretation and still proved you wrong.

Do you want me to say you're right just so you'll feel better?

Should I just say there is no possible way to rein in health care costs through public intervention?

Should I just say we have to accept whatever private insurance can provide and we must accommodate them at every turn so their substandard service to the public at large may not be as substandard?[/QUOTE]

I must have missed the part where you said anything that answers my points let alone to prove me wrong. I just want you to admit that this bill does not lower health care costs like it claims to.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I must have missed the part where you said anything that answers my points let alone to prove me wrong. I just want you to admit that this bill does not lower health care costs like it claims to.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

The bill raised health care costs somewhere between 1% and the normal increase in the cost of health care costs plus 1% while increasing the number of people serviced by 18%.

Is that close enough or do I have to pretend the same or less number of people will be serviced while increasing the cost of health care more than the normal increase in the cost of health care?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Fair enough.

The bill raised health care costs somewhere between 1% and the normal increase in the cost of health care costs plus 1% while increasing the number of people serviced by 18%.

Is that close enough or do I have to pretend the same or less number of people will be serviced while increasing the cost of health care more than the normal increase in the cost of health care?[/QUOTE]

Your post here alone shows you do not understand. When am I claiming the same or less amount of people will be serviced? Do you honestly believe the your first paragraph? Cost estimates from before are already rising due to the expediting of the bill. This isn't the end of these stories of the costs rising, there will be more and you will still defend a flawed bill to the end.

Just show me where these magical savings are coming from that shows we are lowering the costs and I will move on.

edit: Oh yeah and my source was a best case scenario estimate by Obamas team.....
 
[quote name='Msut77']Tea Partiers are a joke and Knoell is the punchline.[/QUOTE]

about the quality of post I come to expect from you as well, no more view post for you. :cry:
 
[quote name='Knoell']Just show me where these magical savings are coming from that shows we are lowering the costs and I will move on.[/QUOTE]

No one should bother, knoell will just ignore them anyway.

edit: Oh yeah and my source was a best case scenario estimate by Obamas team.....
Click to expand...

Or lie about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Your post here alone shows you do not understand. When am I claiming the same or less amount of people will be serviced? Do you honestly believe the your first paragraph? Cost estimates from before are already rising due to the expediting of the bill. This isn't the end of these stories of the costs rising, there will be more and you will still defend a flawed bill to the end.

Just show me where these magical savings are coming from that shows we are lowering the costs and I will move on.

edit: Oh yeah and my source was a best case scenario estimate by Obamas team.....[/QUOTE]

So ...

Do you want more people to be serviced and less money to be spent overall?

Let's try an example.

Let's say my family of four spends $1000 on food per month. I'm spending $250 per person per month.

I add a fifth member to my family. He was sitting on a park bench starving.

Next month, my food bill is $1100 for a family of five. I'm spending $220 per person per month.

If my goal is to spend less money per month on food, I fail. If my goal is to feed more people per month or spend less money on food per person per month, I succeed.
 
[quote name='Knoell']as I expected.[/QUOTE]
Let's try it a different way so that I don't have to write another book about it while hoping that you'll stop being lazy for just long enough to realize that an inability to answer this question means you have NO. IDEA. WHAT. YOU'RE. TALKING. ABOUT.

Knoell, why exactly do the Democrats think their bill will save money?

edit: I knew I was having a deja vu moment. What a surprise. We've been at this same exact spot before and you couldn't bring yourself to answer.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7073523&postcount=3169
 
[quote name='speedracer']Let's try it a different way so that I don't have to write another book about it while hoping that you'll stop being lazy for just long enough to realize that an inability to answer this question means you have NO. IDEA. WHAT. YOU'RE. TALKING. ABOUT.

Knoell, why exactly do the Democrats think their bill will save money?

edit: I knew I was having a deja vu moment. What a surprise. We've been at this same exact spot before and you couldn't bring yourself to answer.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7073523&postcount=3169[/QUOTE]

You know he is going to say nobody answered the question back then.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Let me get this straight. The argument that has been made by the left all through the health-care debate is that health-care costs would decrease because less people would visit emergency rooms under the new law (never mind that the opposite happened in Massachusetts when a similar law was put into effect). Now you are telling me that health-care costs will decrease because emergency rooms will be so overcrowded people will leave instead of waiting for care. Does not compute.[/QUOTE]

Whatever happened to doing the right thing? We are not Greece and the healthcare bill is not going to have a meaningful impact on the solvency of our economy. It might cost a little less, it might cost a little more, a healthier poplace will be worth it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']No one should bother, knoell will just ignore them anyway.



Or lie about it.[/QUOTE]

my god man just look at the links.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/26/1031908/health-costs-to-rise.html
In the first report since the bill was passed, economic experts at the Department of Health and Human Services say the bill, passed only last month, will increase the costs of health care by $511 billion over the next 10 years, instead of bringing them down. That comes from the Obama administration, although the analysts involved are considered neutral, and while it represents only a 1 percent increase it's still a sobering conclusion … because it's a best-case scenario, and it's dependent on a half-trillion dollars in cuts to the Medicare program, largely through Medicare Advantage.
 
[quote name='camoor']Whatever happened to doing the right thing? We are not Greece and the healthcare bill is not going to have a meaningful impact on the solvency of our economy. It might cost a little less, it might cost a little more, a healthier poplace will be worth it.[/QUOTE]

How can you say this? The health care industry is 18% of our economy, changing it in any way will have an impact on the solvency of our economy.

So now its down to, well who cares what it costs, we are doing the right thing?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Let's try it a different way so that I don't have to write another book about it while hoping that you'll stop being lazy for just long enough to realize that an inability to answer this question means you have NO. IDEA. WHAT. YOU'RE. TALKING. ABOUT.

Knoell, why exactly do the Democrats think their bill will save money?

edit: I knew I was having a deja vu moment. What a surprise. We've been at this same exact spot before and you couldn't bring yourself to answer.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7073523&postcount=3169[/QUOTE]


....are you asking me to explain what I just asked you to explain? come on man

Now which lie are you talking about?

The lie that says health care costs will decrease?

or

The lie that says the government will spend less on health care and be deficit neutral?

There is a difference

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']So ...

Do you want more people to be serviced and less money to be spent overall?

Let's try an example.

Let's say my family of four spends $1000 on food per month. I'm spending $250 per person per month.

I add a fifth member to my family. He was sitting on a park bench starving.

Next month, my food bill is $1100 for a family of five. I'm spending $220 per person per month.

If my goal is to spend less money per month on food, I fail. If my goal is to feed more people per month or spend less money on food per person per month, I succeed. [/quote]

Let me ask you, would it be logical to say that the 5th person will only raise the cost of food 1%? So when you got by paying 1000 dollars, adding a 5th person only costs 10 dollars? So when each person got by on $250 dollars, now they can suddenly magically get by on $202?

This is why I am asking you (for the third time) what costs are they lowering in order for this projection to be remotely accurate?

We know one is the $500 billion dollars in medicare cuts that probably won't happen. So what else?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Let me ask you, would it be logical to say that the 5th person will only raise the cost of food 1%? So when you got by paying 1000 dollars, adding a 5th person only costs 10 dollars? So when each person got by on $250 dollars, now they can suddenly magically get by on $202?

This is why I am asking you (for the third time) what costs are they lowering in order for this projection to be remotely accurate?

We know one is the $500 billion dollars in medicare cuts that probably won't happen. So what else?[/QUOTE]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/01/news/economy/health_care_cost_savings/index.htm

Preventative care instead of curative care is one of the keys to lower costs. I think this has been mentioned a few dozen times in the Obamacare thread.

By forcing everybody to have medical insurance or pay a fine, people are less likely to skate by without insurance.

More people having insurance will result in more people using health care.

Are they going to wait until the problem is something major and costs a heap to cure or are they going to have minor problems inspected and cured for a fraction of the major problem's price?

In those three dozen other countries that do health care better than the USA, they do the latter.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/01/news/economy/health_care_cost_savings/index.htm

Preventative care instead of curative care is one of the keys to lower costs. I think this has been mentioned a few dozen times in the Obamacare thread.

By forcing everybody to have medical insurance or pay a fine, people are less likely to skate by without insurance.

More people having insurance will result in more people using health care.

Are they going to wait until the problem is something major and costs a heap to cure or are they going to have minor problems inspected and cured for a fraction of the major problem's price?

In those three dozen other countries that do health care better than the USA, they do the latter.[/QUOTE]


"To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, many of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway," the CBO wrote in a letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., the top Republican on the House Subcommittee on Health.

It seems simple, preventative care in the long run should save tons of money right? This very well could be true, but you are assuming that people will make the right choice to even go to the doctor for said problem. If 275 million people have insurance already, and we still have major health issues in this country, I would have to say that having insurance is not the end all be all to preventative care.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How can you say this? The health care industry is 18% of our economy, changing it in any way will have an impact on the solvency of our economy.

So now its down to, well who cares what it costs, we are doing the right thing?[/QUOTE]

In your view, what is the most it could get up to?
 
[quote name='Knoell']How can you say this? The health care industry is 18% of our economy, changing it in any way will have an impact on the solvency of our economy.

So now its down to, well who cares what it costs, we are doing the right thing?[/QUOTE]

The "solvency" of our economy WTF?

Did you ever even so much as take a basic economics course?

There is no reason why we should spend so much on healthcare and if you want to know about things adversely effecting our economy it is our fucked up system.

camoor:

Knoell apparently believes that bringing healthcare costs to say 10 or 11% would wreck the economy but then so would allowing it increase to 19 instead of "only" 18%.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']The "solvency" of our economy WTF?

Did you ever even so much as take a basic economics course?

There is no reason why we should spend so much on healthcare and if you want to know about things adversely effecting our economy it is our fucked up system.

camoor:

Knoell apparently believes that bringing healthcare costs to say 10 or 11% would wreck the economy but then so would allowing it increase to 19 instead of "only" 18%.[/QUOTE]

The reasons why I stopped being for our current system are 1.) I've actually used the current system and 2.) the system used to only be 14% of the economy.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The "solvency" of our economy WTF?

Did you ever even so much as take a basic economics course?

There is no reason why we should spend so much on healthcare and if you want to know about things adversely effecting our economy it is our fucked up system.

camoor:

Knoell apparently believes that bringing healthcare costs to say 10 or 11% would wreck the economy but then so would allowing it increase to 19 instead of "only" 18%.[/QUOTE]

That's what I asked the question. It seems like ElP and Knoell start with a simplistic thought - govt healthcare is bad - and then try to tack on a reason why.

Guess what - Greece is also going to have to cut back spending on it's military, police, and schools as a result of the deal. You could just as easily make a fatuous arguement that any one of these cutbacks serves as a dire warning for the US.
 
As best as I can work out from what I'v read, the 2 main causes of this crisis in Greece seem to have been massive public spending and tax evasion on a grand scale.

I don't think it was anything to do with over-spending on healthcare and healthcare cuts don't seem to have been part of the "Austerity Bill" their parliment passed.

I'm no fan of socialism but it seems people are trying to twist the problems in Greece to fit in with their arguments against the healthcare bill in the US.
 
[quote name='camoor']

Guess what - Greece is also going to have to cut back spending on it's military, police, and schools as a result of the deal. You could just as easily make a arguement that any one of these cutbacks serves as a dire warning for the US.[/QUOTE]

they all do....we really need to cut our damn spending across the board.

Still waiting on these magic cost cutting areas that is making health care so cheap!
 
[quote name='benjamouth']As best as I can work out from what I'v read, the 2 main causes of this crisis in Greece seem to have been massive public spending and tax evasion on a grand scale.

I don't think it was anything to do with over-spending on healthcare and healthcare cuts don't seem to have been part of the "Austerity Bill" their parliment passed.

I'm no fan of socialism but it seems people are trying to twist the problems in Greece to fit in with their arguments against the healthcare bill in the US.[/QUOTE]

massive pubic spending goes hand in hand with health care spending.
 
[quote name='Knoell']they all do....we really need to cut our damn spending across the board.

Still waiting on these magic cost cutting areas that is making health care so cheap![/QUOTE]

Post #83. You can also read the article linked in the post.

In the grand scheme, government will step in and state how much they will pay for a procedure or medicine. If it is smart, private insurance will emulate government once Big Gubmint is paying less than what they're paying.

Doctors, hospitals and drug companies will howl over how they can't stay in business, but will continue operating.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Post #83. You can also read the article linked in the post.

In the grand scheme, government will step in and state how much they will pay for a procedure or medicine. If it is smart, private insurance will emulate government once Big Gubmint is paying less than what they're paying.

Doctors, hospitals and drug companies will howl over how they can't stay in business, but will continue operating.[/QUOTE]


1274298912145.jpg

truly, Knoell.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Post #83. You can also read the article linked in the post.

In the grand scheme, government will step in and state how much they will pay for a procedure or medicine. If it is smart, private insurance will emulate government once Big Gubmint is paying less than what they're paying.

Doctors, hospitals and drug companies will howl over how they can't stay in business, but will continue operating.[/QUOTE]

http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/12/health-care-corporatism-arrive
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Preventative care instead of curative care is one of the keys to lower costs. I think this has been mentioned a few dozen times in the Obamacare thread.[/quote]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Preventive care, applied more widely, increases costs more than it decreases them. I was part of the discussion in the other thread as well. More often than not, the tests for X amount of people cost more than treating the illness of the guy who gets sick. Now, I'm not making a judgment as to if the cost is worth it; after all, there is some non-monetary benefit to preventing the pain and suffering of getting sick. However, to claim that this is a "key" to lowering costs demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of this issue.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']By forcing everybody to have medical insurance or pay a fine, people are less likely to skate by without insurance.[/quote]

Theoretically, yes. However, the government has set the fine at a fairly low level. The government has also mandated that insurance companies accept people with "pre-existing conditions" (otherwise known as people who are already sick, as well as those likely to get sick). If my fine is $1000 and my insurance premiums are $2000, why the hell would I, being a somewhat healthy person, not pay the fine and expect that I could get away with paying half as much? After all, if I did get seriously ill, I could just buy insurance and they'd have to take me, right?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']More people having insurance will result in more people using health care.[/quote]

True, although it's been shown that having health insurance doesn't increase overall health. For example, look at health outcomes of senior citizens following the passage of Medicare.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are they going to wait until the problem is something major and costs a heap to cure or are they going to have minor problems inspected and cured for a fraction of the major problem's price?[/quote]

See above. This just isn't true in many/most cases. For some things yes, this is absolutely a cost savings, but overall no.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In those three dozen other countries that do health care better than the USA, they do the latter.[/QUOTE]

I know we've had this discussion before on this board, but there are only 30+ countries that do health care better than the U.S. if you use the WHO (I think?) rankings. More or less this means that if you are poor, yes, many countries do health care better; but if you can afford it, ours is among the best.
 
[FONT='PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif'][quote name='elprincipe']Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Preventive care, applied more widely, increases costs more than it decreases them. I was part of the discussion in the other thread as well. More often than not, the tests for X amount of people cost more than treating the illness of the guy who gets sick. Now, I'm not making a judgment as to if the cost is worth it; after all, there is some non-monetary benefit to preventing the pain and suffering of getting sick. However, to claim that this is a "key" to lowering costs demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of this issue.[/QUOTE]

http://www.annals.org/content/139/11/950.full.pdf+html

Using a very expensive test such as a MRI to check for one or two problems would be the sometimes no area. Using an inexpensive test such as a physical to check for dozens of problems would be the sometimes yes area.

[quote name='elprincipe'] Theoretically, yes. However, the government has set the fine at a fairly low level. The government has also mandated that insurance companies accept people with "pre-existing conditions" (otherwise known as people who are already sick, as well as those likely to get sick). If my fine is $1000 and my insurance premiums are $2000, why the hell would I, being a somewhat healthy person, not pay the fine and expect that I could get away with paying half as much? After all, if I did get seriously ill, I could just buy insurance and they'd have to take me, right?[/QUOTE]

Therein lies the problem with myopia. My wife is a somewhat healthy person and she has consumed the better part of $40K in medical bills before the age of 32. The new law is trying to push people into doing the intelligent thing. The mentality of fines versus premiums forgets medical costs that would make premiums far more attractive and I hope you educate people when you run into that mindset.


[quote name='elprincipe'] True, although it's been shown that having health insurance doesn't increase overall health. For example, look at health outcomes of senior citizens following the passage of Medicare. [/QUOTE]

Dmaul pointed out a while back that people with insurance have better cancer survival rates than people without insurance even when people with insurance had a more advanced cancer than people without insurance.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...untry:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+chart

According to the chart, life expectancy has gone up. Is that because of Medicare or some other factor or their combination?

[quote name='elprincipe'] See above. This just isn't true in many/most cases. For some things yes, this is absolutely a cost savings, but overall no.[/QUOTE]

I guess we need some reeducation. If you get people involved in maintaining their health earlier, you save money. If you get people involved in maintaining their health on their death bed, you lose money.

[quote name='elprincipe'] I know we've had this discussion before on this board, but there are only 30+ countries that do health care better than the U.S. if you use the WHO (I think?) rankings. More or less this means that if you are poor, yes, many countries do health care better; but if you can afford it, ours is among the best.[/QUOTE]

Therein lies the problem. A set of new tits is a luxury. A new heart valve is a necessity. So, health care might seem like a luxury, but can easily be a necessity. You have dozens of countries capable of decoupling the ability to pay and treatment. Overall, their results have exceeded our results and done so for less money. If these countries were paying more for health care and having poorer overall results, I would be on the insurance companies' side.
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top