The Health Insurance Industry is behind the Health Care Reform bill. What does that tell ya? This is all about affordable health care insurance and speaking for myself, I need health care insurance...at the current time I use the free clinic, what's that costing ya?
Everyone call your representatives and ask them if they plan to avoid the people who voted them into office and can get them fired. Lets see what they say to that!! Or at least the poor schlump who has to answer their phones while they hide under their desks. I have a feeling that e-mailing and phoning is no longer going to work. They will just tune it out. We need to get up close and personal.
Once people get their jobs back, the cost for this will be even lower.
preventive heathcare practices will save even more money.
The critics are deforming the facts. They are calculating the cost of heathcare now(if it stays like this) plus the cost to reform it. They think they slick.
No, it necessarily won't. Because businesses who laid people off may not offer employer provided health insurance and directing people to remain on the "public" system. Also, with rising costs, employers who do offer insurance may completely drop their plans and tell their employees to sign up for government health care. And prices will go up, with services reduced, including that life saving surgery to the retired teacher.
We will save by encouraging preventive healthcare, so those expensive treatments will lower for one leaving money to reinvest to make the reform even better.
Who says the employer would drop coverage? If they wanted to they could drop coverage now, but they havent, so I'm not understanding how you come to that conclusion.
while your thinking about the retired teacher, think of the people who died b/c they didnt have coverage at all.
Health care cost go up. The rate at which it has been going up has become alarming, but no one is really addressing certain aspects of why it continues to rise. And you apparently didn't pay much attention to the video. The expected COST of the Mass. plan will exceed 800 million next year, according to the article (primarily because more people are signing on - and as more people sign on, employers give the choice to pay for employee health or let the gov't do it, will let the gov't do it.
Not at all. The government is so concerned about covering the 12-20 million people who are "not covered". Let them cover them. It would be far less costly than the comprehensive "everyone HAS to participate" Obama plan. Once they get that in place, they can work on measures to actually bring down the cost of health care (like deal responsibly with litigious lawsuits that cause costs to skyrocket).
And you NEED to be aware that people are going to die under his plan. The government bureaucracy will, in order to cut the continuing skyrocketing costs, deny certain health services to both senior citizens and those deemed "outside" the demographics. They will encourage those individuals to seek a "humane, life-ending" alternative (assisted suicide). Obama also seems to miss the point that everyone can and does receive urgent health care, regardless of the ability to pay.
No hospital can legally turn away someone - insurance or not - in need of urgent, critical care. This is another reason why the cost of health care is going up. The insured already - in a sense - subsidize the health care of those who can't afford it, but the controls and options are in the hands of the employees, who pay their premiums to get their coverage.
And one of the biggest problems that the Democrats and Obama are now encountering is the liberal lefts attempt to get FOCA passed by stealth by including full abortion coverage at taxpayer expense, with no conscience clause, no limitations (which would allow partial birth abortions) and no exclusion to institutions (religious, etc.) that have sincere moral objections to abortion.
This year, expected costs are 869 million (no mention of what the budget is).
Next year estimated cost - 880 million
How do they expect to reign in costs? By limiting what is eligible under the plan. Emergency visits that "THEY" (gov't) don't think are necessary. Telling people to go to local office for other things? What/who pays for that? The individual? So much for the state plan.
ESTIMATES. They dont know the real cost, and since they oppose what he has to say, the exagerate.
That's a trick they have used since the beginning of time. Scare tactic. They can get the hell on with that shit. They are more concerned with money than human lives.
Only one is really an estimate. The first two are definitely NOT estimates. The 2009 figure while relying on limited estimation, can be more accurately determined by the 1st and 2nd quarter figures, with some estimation for the remainder of the 3rd quarter and all of the 4th. 2010 is an estimate, yes, BUT based on the REAL TRENDS already exhibited by 2006,2007 and 2008. That's called forecasting in accounting and if it weren't somewhat accurate, it wouldn't be used. Take an accounting class
Very good, you got one thing correct. But please explain something. The dimwit economist who came up with that plan. He SAID that the plan is paid for by existing funds. Question. When the expenditures - as in the SECOND YEAR - are exceeding the budget by 33%, exactly WHAT existing funds does he think exists to cover that 33% over budget? The money has to come from somewhere. What loses funding in order to pay for it? Or do they increase taxes to cover the increasing costs?
Very good? first of all, if your going to talk condesending to me, keep you fucking message to yourself.
and two, he CLEARLY stated that as healthcare reform moves forward, savings will build and they can be reinvested in the healthcare reform which leaves the money we would normally be spending on healthcare available.
Savings from what? Health costs are skyrocketing and increasingly going over their annual budgets. From what source do you think the state is going to glean savings? Unless you are talking about the savings that will have briefly been enjoyed by those participating in the plan, who will then see those savings conveniently transferred to the government coffers via tax hikes and assorted "fees", fines and other creative ways of removing those "savings" from the hands of the consumer.
And, if you are going to think that I am talking condescending to you, at least have the decency to not use profanity and actually spell the word condescending correctly. Otherwise you make it appear that I have accurately assessed your abilities, IF you think I am being condescending.
OR, do you think those savings will come from increased rationing (decreased available services), such that, if the retired teacher had needed that surgery, say, ten years from now, she would find herself no longer eligible to that surgery because of her age and the diagnosis? Is THAT where the savings is going to come from? So, we will pay more taxes for less health care. Well, NOW I can see why you like it so much. It all makes sense now. (last 2 sentences are sarcasm, just in case).
Because JUST rationing health care will not help reduce the ballooning cost of the health care. And explain exactly HOW a person going to their local doctor instead of urgent care is going to reduce costs? Is the doctor going to not charge for that office visit? I don't think so. And flat paying doctors ? Do you think the doctors are going to be fine with that? Let's see them do that and then watch how many doctors leave Massachusetts for "other" states.
Because HMO's and PPO's have emphasized preventative care over care for diagnosed illness and injury treatment. And health care costs for HMO's and PPO's still keep going up. The ONLY way expensive treatments will be reduced is through denial of treatment and rationing and forcing doctors and hospitals to apply fixed pricing, which will cause the loss of practicing physicians.
and a large amount of illness can be prevented from simple check ups. alot of the time, if an illness is detected early, steps can be taken to prevent exspensive treatments.
The bottom line is, the number of people dying and the money being spent will both increase if do nothing.
a large amount of illness can be prevented from simple checkups? So increasing the frequency by which people get checkups is going to lower costs? Seems to me, it will increase costs. You have people who will still only see a doctor, when they are sick. Some might go with a Prevention Care mindset, but that will only increase costs if they go, when they didn't go before. Doctors being overpaid? Sadly, cut their fees and doctors will leave the field for something else.
The fact is the number of people dying and the money being spent will both increase with a "public option" plan. And then taxes will increase and denials of service will increase and people dying will increase again.
The way you talk, it's a lose-lose situation either way. If that's the case, why are people so riled up when either way, they get fucked according to your logic?
It's a greater lose with government health care. Government will ration health care, increase taxes, doctors will become scarce as their pay will be fixed, plus those who oppose abortion will be forced to pay for it via taxes and senior citizens and individuals requiring costly services (cancer treatment) will be denied those treatments because the money "could go to someone with a 'more treatable' condition and the seniors and critically ill be be advised toward euthanasia.
Hell, health care is rationed now. If you have ins you get it. Doctors get paid entirely too much anyway. Surgeons and specialty doctors deserve it, just a reg Dr is overpaid.
You call it a greater loss because you dont agree with it. That makes what your saying an opinion.
Overall, I'm not as heartless as you people. 46 mil w/o healthcare is ridiculous and sitting by letting them die b/c people are selfish with their money says alot about the morality of the ppl in this country.
Again, no one is denied medical treatment in cases of urgent, critical, emergency health care, based on their ability or inability to pay. And the reasons I gave for it being a greater loss went well beyond "because I don't agree with it". And it's not just opinion.
The bottom line is that somebody has to pay for them to be treated and since they're not turned away and have no way of paying for it, who do you think pays for it? The cost dont magically disappear.
I don't doubt that the costs don't magically disappear. The problem with government run health care comes in what will happen to reign in costs. Rationing and higher taxes. At least in an open market, you can shop for the least expensive insurance. If Obama gets his way, there will only be the government and no choice on taxes, no choice on health care. Plus, and this was a point I was going to make in a separate comment post....which I will do in the next one
In Oregon, where the state has the "public option" AND legal assisted suicide, a female cancer patient was denied chemotherapy and was advised to seriously consider the assisted suicide option. When questioned, the chief of the state system basically said they wouldn't spend money on chemotherapy when the money could "more effectively" be spent somewhere else. And I am sure that they "promised" that would never happen when pitching state run health care in Oregon.
keep dreaming little loser.
amirla84 2 years ago
The Health Insurance Industry is behind the Health Care Reform bill. What does that tell ya? This is all about affordable health care insurance and speaking for myself, I need health care insurance...at the current time I use the free clinic, what's that costing ya?
Boomer1949 2 years ago
fuck obama and his stupid ass plan.
amirla84 2 years ago
Everyone call your representatives and ask them if they plan to avoid the people who voted them into office and can get them fired. Lets see what they say to that!! Or at least the poor schlump who has to answer their phones while they hide under their desks. I have a feeling that e-mailing and phoning is no longer going to work. They will just tune it out. We need to get up close and personal.
dkkght46 2 years ago
okay. That doesnt seem bad at all.
Once people get their jobs back, the cost for this will be even lower.
preventive heathcare practices will save even more money.
The critics are deforming the facts. They are calculating the cost of heathcare now(if it stays like this) plus the cost to reform it. They think they slick.
diah4 2 years ago
No, it necessarily won't. Because businesses who laid people off may not offer employer provided health insurance and directing people to remain on the "public" system. Also, with rising costs, employers who do offer insurance may completely drop their plans and tell their employees to sign up for government health care. And prices will go up, with services reduced, including that life saving surgery to the retired teacher.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
What makes you so sure the the cost will go up?
We will save by encouraging preventive healthcare, so those expensive treatments will lower for one leaving money to reinvest to make the reform even better.
Who says the employer would drop coverage? If they wanted to they could drop coverage now, but they havent, so I'm not understanding how you come to that conclusion.
while your thinking about the retired teacher, think of the people who died b/c they didnt have coverage at all.
diah4 2 years ago
Health care cost go up. The rate at which it has been going up has become alarming, but no one is really addressing certain aspects of why it continues to rise. And you apparently didn't pay much attention to the video. The expected COST of the Mass. plan will exceed 800 million next year, according to the article (primarily because more people are signing on - and as more people sign on, employers give the choice to pay for employee health or let the gov't do it, will let the gov't do it.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
Okay, so for the love of money, you's rather let the people who cant afford to pay for it die?
That's what you thik we should do? Money is printed. When someone dies, you cant just reprint them in a damn machine.
diah4 2 years ago
Not at all. The government is so concerned about covering the 12-20 million people who are "not covered". Let them cover them. It would be far less costly than the comprehensive "everyone HAS to participate" Obama plan. Once they get that in place, they can work on measures to actually bring down the cost of health care (like deal responsibly with litigious lawsuits that cause costs to skyrocket).
JWC3RD 2 years ago
And you NEED to be aware that people are going to die under his plan. The government bureaucracy will, in order to cut the continuing skyrocketing costs, deny certain health services to both senior citizens and those deemed "outside" the demographics. They will encourage those individuals to seek a "humane, life-ending" alternative (assisted suicide). Obama also seems to miss the point that everyone can and does receive urgent health care, regardless of the ability to pay.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
No hospital can legally turn away someone - insurance or not - in need of urgent, critical care. This is another reason why the cost of health care is going up. The insured already - in a sense - subsidize the health care of those who can't afford it, but the controls and options are in the hands of the employees, who pay their premiums to get their coverage.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
And one of the biggest problems that the Democrats and Obama are now encountering is the liberal lefts attempt to get FOCA passed by stealth by including full abortion coverage at taxpayer expense, with no conscience clause, no limitations (which would allow partial birth abortions) and no exclusion to institutions (religious, etc.) that have sincere moral objections to abortion.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
That is incorrect. You need to look it up again.
diah4 2 years ago
What is not correct? Be specific.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
First year cost - 133 million - 17% under budget.
Second year cost - 628 million - 33% OVER budget
This year, expected costs are 869 million (no mention of what the budget is).
Next year estimated cost - 880 million
How do they expect to reign in costs? By limiting what is eligible under the plan. Emergency visits that "THEY" (gov't) don't think are necessary. Telling people to go to local office for other things? What/who pays for that? The individual? So much for the state plan.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
What are those, again?
ESTIMATES. They dont know the real cost, and since they oppose what he has to say, the exagerate.
That's a trick they have used since the beginning of time. Scare tactic. They can get the hell on with that shit. They are more concerned with money than human lives.
You know ewhat the root of all evil is, right?
diah4 2 years ago
Only one is really an estimate. The first two are definitely NOT estimates. The 2009 figure while relying on limited estimation, can be more accurately determined by the 1st and 2nd quarter figures, with some estimation for the remainder of the 3rd quarter and all of the 4th. 2010 is an estimate, yes, BUT based on the REAL TRENDS already exhibited by 2006,2007 and 2008. That's called forecasting in accounting and if it weren't somewhat accurate, it wouldn't be used. Take an accounting class
JWC3RD 2 years ago
Sorry, the post should say, "exhibited in 2007, 2008".
JWC3RD 2 years ago
Oh and PLEASE tell me what YOU think the root of all evil is. I want to know if you will get it right, because so many people get it wrong.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
THE LOVE OF MONEY. DUUUUUHHH!!
diah4 2 years ago
Very good, you got one thing correct. But please explain something. The dimwit economist who came up with that plan. He SAID that the plan is paid for by existing funds. Question. When the expenditures - as in the SECOND YEAR - are exceeding the budget by 33%, exactly WHAT existing funds does he think exists to cover that 33% over budget? The money has to come from somewhere. What loses funding in order to pay for it? Or do they increase taxes to cover the increasing costs?
JWC3RD 2 years ago
Very good? first of all, if your going to talk condesending to me, keep you fucking message to yourself.
and two, he CLEARLY stated that as healthcare reform moves forward, savings will build and they can be reinvested in the healthcare reform which leaves the money we would normally be spending on healthcare available.
diah4 2 years ago
Savings from what? Health costs are skyrocketing and increasingly going over their annual budgets. From what source do you think the state is going to glean savings? Unless you are talking about the savings that will have briefly been enjoyed by those participating in the plan, who will then see those savings conveniently transferred to the government coffers via tax hikes and assorted "fees", fines and other creative ways of removing those "savings" from the hands of the consumer.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
And, if you are going to think that I am talking condescending to you, at least have the decency to not use profanity and actually spell the word condescending correctly. Otherwise you make it appear that I have accurately assessed your abilities, IF you think I am being condescending.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
OR, do you think those savings will come from increased rationing (decreased available services), such that, if the retired teacher had needed that surgery, say, ten years from now, she would find herself no longer eligible to that surgery because of her age and the diagnosis? Is THAT where the savings is going to come from? So, we will pay more taxes for less health care. Well, NOW I can see why you like it so much. It all makes sense now. (last 2 sentences are sarcasm, just in case).
JWC3RD 2 years ago
Because JUST rationing health care will not help reduce the ballooning cost of the health care. And explain exactly HOW a person going to their local doctor instead of urgent care is going to reduce costs? Is the doctor going to not charge for that office visit? I don't think so. And flat paying doctors ? Do you think the doctors are going to be fine with that? Let's see them do that and then watch how many doctors leave Massachusetts for "other" states.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
Because HMO's and PPO's have emphasized preventative care over care for diagnosed illness and injury treatment. And health care costs for HMO's and PPO's still keep going up. The ONLY way expensive treatments will be reduced is through denial of treatment and rationing and forcing doctors and hospitals to apply fixed pricing, which will cause the loss of practicing physicians.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
They get paid ridiculous amounts of money anyway.
and a large amount of illness can be prevented from simple check ups. alot of the time, if an illness is detected early, steps can be taken to prevent exspensive treatments.
The bottom line is, the number of people dying and the money being spent will both increase if do nothing.
What's your argument on that?
diah4 2 years ago
a large amount of illness can be prevented from simple checkups? So increasing the frequency by which people get checkups is going to lower costs? Seems to me, it will increase costs. You have people who will still only see a doctor, when they are sick. Some might go with a Prevention Care mindset, but that will only increase costs if they go, when they didn't go before. Doctors being overpaid? Sadly, cut their fees and doctors will leave the field for something else.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
The fact is the number of people dying and the money being spent will both increase with a "public option" plan. And then taxes will increase and denials of service will increase and people dying will increase again.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
The way you talk, it's a lose-lose situation either way. If that's the case, why are people so riled up when either way, they get fucked according to your logic?
diah4 2 years ago
It's a greater lose with government health care. Government will ration health care, increase taxes, doctors will become scarce as their pay will be fixed, plus those who oppose abortion will be forced to pay for it via taxes and senior citizens and individuals requiring costly services (cancer treatment) will be denied those treatments because the money "could go to someone with a 'more treatable' condition and the seniors and critically ill be be advised toward euthanasia.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
Hell, health care is rationed now. If you have ins you get it. Doctors get paid entirely too much anyway. Surgeons and specialty doctors deserve it, just a reg Dr is overpaid.
You call it a greater loss because you dont agree with it. That makes what your saying an opinion.
Overall, I'm not as heartless as you people. 46 mil w/o healthcare is ridiculous and sitting by letting them die b/c people are selfish with their money says alot about the morality of the ppl in this country.
diah4 2 years ago
Again, no one is denied medical treatment in cases of urgent, critical, emergency health care, based on their ability or inability to pay. And the reasons I gave for it being a greater loss went well beyond "because I don't agree with it". And it's not just opinion.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
The bottom line is that somebody has to pay for them to be treated and since they're not turned away and have no way of paying for it, who do you think pays for it? The cost dont magically disappear.
diah4 2 years ago
I don't doubt that the costs don't magically disappear. The problem with government run health care comes in what will happen to reign in costs. Rationing and higher taxes. At least in an open market, you can shop for the least expensive insurance. If Obama gets his way, there will only be the government and no choice on taxes, no choice on health care. Plus, and this was a point I was going to make in a separate comment post....which I will do in the next one
JWC3RD 2 years ago
In Oregon, where the state has the "public option" AND legal assisted suicide, a female cancer patient was denied chemotherapy and was advised to seriously consider the assisted suicide option. When questioned, the chief of the state system basically said they wouldn't spend money on chemotherapy when the money could "more effectively" be spent somewhere else. And I am sure that they "promised" that would never happen when pitching state run health care in Oregon.
JWC3RD 2 years ago
ok, but with cheaper healthcare, wont the care be less in quality, which I believe was your complaint about universal healthcare?
diah4 2 years ago
Let's all move to Massachusetts.
shfbdfi1273 2 years ago
whats with these advertisements?! I go to youtube to avoid this crap
P4ndaBear 2 years ago
You can't escape ads unless you paid for your programs.
shfbdfi1273 2 years ago 2