1 3 Next
Topic: Obama plan to pay for health reform
yellowrose10's photo
Sat 06/13/09 01:58 PM


having SOME regulations on private healthcare is one thing....to keep monoploies down...but not to take over by the government. where does it stop?


I don't see this as being a take over since the industry will still be there in it's current form, and no one has to participate if the rules don't work in the business world. What Hillary wanted was a take over of the health care system that I could never support. Again I don't really like it either, it's just the lessor snake, to paraphrase what you like to say.


ahhhhh you rememebered pitchfork

Delsoldamien's photo
Sat 06/13/09 02:02 PM
so you will have employers looking for ways to reduce their cost and will find it by not paying or providing healthcare for their employees...why pay it when the government has set up a program to provide it...do you really think business, conservative or liberal will keep paying for something when the government is willing to take on that cost??? or are they going to pass laws dictating healthcare coverages by private businesses??

DaveyB's photo
Sat 06/13/09 02:33 PM

so you will have employers looking for ways to reduce their cost and will find it by not paying or providing healthcare for their employees...why pay it when the government has set up a program to provide it...do you really think business, conservative or liberal will keep paying for something when the government is willing to take on that cost??? or are they going to pass laws dictating healthcare coverages by private businesses??


They are doing that now... look at the uninsured percentage to the unemployed percentage bit of a gap in there isn't it :wink:. You seem to be confusing low cost care with no cost care. Employees will still want to have insurance and will still want companies to pay for it whether it be directly through company group policy or through the government program.

willing2's photo
Sat 06/13/09 03:05 PM
What is happening in other countries with Socialized Medicine is, Dr.s under the program make a salary. No matter what the workload, they make the same. There are many who have migrated to countries who are not Socialized.
We have Social Clinics here already. The waits are long, 4 to 6 hours, to see the Dr. There is a charge, your income determines how much your co-pay is. The higher income folks pay premium co-pays. Hence, spread the wealth.
You won't find many upper class folks in those clinics and if you see someone come in and not have to wait along with the rest of us, it's because they have additional coverage.

Dragoness's photo
Sat 06/13/09 03:29 PM
Health care in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Health care in Canada is funded and delivered through a publicly-funded health care system, with most services provided by private entities.[1]

Health care spending in Canada is projected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007. This is slightly above the average for OECD countries. In Canada, the various levels of government pay for about 71% of Canadians' health care costs, which is slightly below the OECD average. Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the publicly funded insurance plans are required to pay for medically necessary care, but only if it is delivered in hospitals or by physicians. There is considerable variation across the provinces/territories as to the extent to which such costs as outpatient prescription drugs, physical therapy, long-term care, home care, dental care and even ambulance services are covered.[2]

Considerable attention has been focused on two issues: wait times and health human resources. There is also a debate about the appropriate 'public-private mix' for both financing and delivering services.

Canada's healthcare spending is expected to reach $171.9 billion, or $5,170 per person, in 2008. Health expenditures are expected to be 10.7% of the gross domestic product. Hospitals account for the largest segment in spending at $48.1 billion, however, this amount is declining. According to the OECD, spending was second amongst other countries, behind the United States and ahead of Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg[3].

Canada has a federally sponsored, publicly funded Medicare system, with most services provided by the private sector. Each province may opt out, though none currently do. Canada's system is known as a single payer system, where basic services are provided by private doctors (since 2002 they have been allowed to incorporate), with the entire fee paid for by the government at the same rate. Most family doctors receive a fee per visit. These rates are negotiated between the provincial governments and the province's medical associations, usually on an annual basis. A physician cannot charge a fee for a service that is higher than the negotiated rate — even to patients who are not covered by the publicly funded system — unless the physican opts out of billing the publicly funded system altogether. Pharmaceutical costs are set at a global median by government price controls. Other areas of health care, such as dentistry and optometry, are wholly private.



These systems work. It will be a hard conversion for us here but it can be done.

The cost for the conversion will probably be high but the end result will be worth it.

DaveyB's photo
Sat 06/13/09 03:54 PM

What is happening in other countries with Socialized Medicine is, Dr.s under the program make a salary. No matter what the workload, they make the same. There are many who have migrated to countries who are not Socialized.
We have Social Clinics here already. The waits are long, 4 to 6 hours, to see the Dr. There is a charge, your income determines how much your co-pay is. The higher income folks pay premium co-pays. Hence, spread the wealth.
You won't find many upper class folks in those clinics and if you see someone come in and not have to wait along with the rest of us, it's because they have additional coverage.


Seen that here too. Lot of facilities are gone. Don't confuse the fact that Obama is saying he wants to take money from the medicare program to pay for this new insurance as meaning the new insurance will be medicare. That's not what I've seen or read anywhere.

no photo
Sat 06/13/09 05:04 PM
Edited by crickstergo on Sat 06/13/09 05:12 PM
“Any honest accounting must prepare for the fact that health care reform will require additional costs in the short term in order to reduce spending in the long term,”

Tell me when that strategy has ever worked. Spend to save later. Yeah, right.

In his address Saturday, Obama refers to a 10-year total of more than $600 billion in “savings” for health care. However, he does not explain in his latest comments that, under his revised budget released last month, $326 billion of that amount would come from tax hikes on Americans making over $250,000 a year, “loophole closers,” and higher fees for some government services.

Another tell all statement from the article.

Does anyone know the definition of "savings" in the Obama administration? Tax hikes aren't savings and neither are fees.

DaveyB's photo
Sat 06/13/09 05:18 PM
Edited by DaveyB on Sat 06/13/09 06:13 PM

“Any honest accounting must prepare for the fact that health care reform will require additional costs in the short term in order to reduce spending in the long term,”

Tell me when that strategy has ever worked. Spend to save later. Yeah, right.


I do that to one degree or another nearly every time I go shopping and it most definitely works. ie: Buy the big economy size (as long as it's not a perishable) so that you can save money over the long haul. There are significant costs to having uninsured people out there so he potential for cost savings is definitely there. Now whether or not the program he's pushing will do that is a question yet, but it is most definitely possible.


In his address Saturday, Obama refers to a 10-year total of more than $600 billion in “savings” for health care. However, he does not explain in his latest comments that, under his revised budget released last month, $326 billion of that amount would come from tax hikes on Americans making over $250,000 a year, “loophole closers,” and higher fees for some government services.


Typical politicians ploy or miss direction, as for the closing of loop holes I've no problem with that.


Does anyone know the definition of "savings" in the Obama administration? Tax hikes aren't savings and neither are fees.


Unfair statement because the portion of how he would pay for that he was talking about was savings though personally I don't see it happening.

no photo
Sun 06/14/09 07:40 AM


“Any honest accounting must prepare for the fact that health care reform will require additional costs in the short term in order to reduce spending in the long term,”

Tell me when that strategy has ever worked. Spend to save later. Yeah, right.


I do that to one degree or another nearly every time I go shopping and it most definitely works. ie: Buy the big economy size (as long as it's not a perishable) so that you can save money over the long haul. There are significant costs to having uninsured people out there so he potential for cost savings is definitely there. Now whether or not the program he's pushing will do that is a question yet, but it is most definitely possible.


In his address Saturday, Obama refers to a 10-year total of more than $600 billion in “savings” for health care. However, he does not explain in his latest comments that, under his revised budget released last month, $326 billion of that amount would come from tax hikes on Americans making over $250,000 a year, “loophole closers,” and higher fees for some government services.


Typical politicians ploy or miss direction, as for the closing of loop holes I've no problem with that.


Does anyone know the definition of "savings" in the Obama administration? Tax hikes aren't savings and neither are fees.


Unfair statement because the portion of how he would pay for that he was talking about was savings though personally I don't see it happening.


noway


THERE IS NEVER ANY SAVINGS WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED.

willing2's photo
Sun 06/14/09 09:33 AM



“Any honest accounting must prepare for the fact that health care reform will require additional costs in the short term in order to reduce spending in the long term,”

Tell me when that strategy has ever worked. Spend to save later. Yeah, right.


I do that to one degree or another nearly every time I go shopping and it most definitely works. ie: Buy the big economy size (as long as it's not a perishable) so that you can save money over the long haul. There are significant costs to having uninsured people out there so he potential for cost savings is definitely there. Now whether or not the program he's pushing will do that is a question yet, but it is most definitely possible.


In his address Saturday, Obama refers to a 10-year total of more than $600 billion in “savings” for health care. However, he does not explain in his latest comments that, under his revised budget released last month, $326 billion of that amount would come from tax hikes on Americans making over $250,000 a year, “loophole closers,” and higher fees for some government services.


Typical politicians ploy or miss direction, as for the closing of loop holes I've no problem with that.


Does anyone know the definition of "savings" in the Obama administration? Tax hikes aren't savings and neither are fees.


Unfair statement because the portion of how he would pay for that he was talking about was savings though personally I don't see it happening.


noway


THERE IS NEVER ANY SAVINGS WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED.

Agreed, Crickstergo.
And as always, more burden on the working class and poor.
I wanna' see those BHOBNers share their wealth with the rest of us.
They seem to be so Pro-Give Away.

1 3 Next