Obamacare for old folks: Just 'cut your life short'

[EDBTZ12]

Originally Posted by bcb

That back in '83?

Late 70's and early 80's. Almost every house had a for sale sign on.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think government intervention that includes a government mandated health care program is the solution to any of this.

Obviously, there needs to be some kind of reform though. Starting with cleaning up those insurance premiums.

Wait--so, if government intervention isn't the right idea, who's going to 'clean up' insurance premiums?

The health care system in the U.S. proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: private industry is not always more efficient. Quite apart from being unfair, quite apart from creating hardship for the poor.... the US health care system costs more than any other health care system in the developed world. Health care costs are out of control there.

I think it might be time for some government intervention, personally. I also think it's interesting that the Canadian health care system costs less than half as much as a percentage of GDP, yet has far better health care outcomes across the board. Our system isn't perfect... but how many of us would trade with the Americans?

I'm guessing not too many. I've experienced health care on both sides of the border; we have it pretty good up here.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Why can't we just exterminate all old folks?

Old people need to be isolated and studied so that it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by I wanna be like Miikka

People in Canada shouldn't feel that great anyways. The US has the worst healthcare out of developed countries, with Canada following as the 2nd worst. In no other developed country do you have to wait 2 years for certain appointments or surgical procedures.

Second worst based on what link? I assume you are citing a study, not your own opinion.

I don't necessarily think the problem is with Canada's SYSTEM, but rather the implementation. There has been a lot of talk this week that health care is 13% of the U.S. economy. It's 10% here. That's still a huge number.

Hospitals, including maintenance costs, are $42.4 billion per year.
Drug costs are $24.8 billion per year.
Doctors cost $18.2 billion per year.
Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are $13.3 billion per year.

With other expenses, we get up to $142 billion per year. Our per capita spending on health care is $4,400. There are many other countries with single-payer systems that pay much less than that for better service.

[starseed]

The oecd has different numbers, 10% for Canada, 16% for the US. $3895 USD per capita in Canada, $7290 USD per capita in the US.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf

If France is the benchmark, they spend about $300 less per capita.

If you ask me, I would say the main difference here is that France funds higher education. Students have easier access to medical school in France than in Canada. Otherwise, we spend pretty much the same as most other countries... although slightly more.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

That's another of the distortions that have been pushed by same people who say they believe in the free market, but can't stand any kind of outside competition.

You are deluded if you think a government mandated health care program is actually something that will provide decent competition in a free market economy.

They can dictate prices, they can raise taxes to cover the outlandish costs, they can regulate everything like they jolly well please, they can force treatment on certain people, they can set health standards, etc, etc.

The government has a history of screwing huge programs up. Social Security is going to crash sooner than later. So why would you trust them with another $1.5 trillion dollar investment, especially considering this is the same government that is in charge of stimulating the economy, and can't even do that properly.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

If I've got to deal with a president helping to further the debt this country is in--I'd rather it happen while he attempts to help keep the citizens of the country healthy, rather than a president who spends recklessly on the military.

Ah yes, you've bought into the line of thinking that spending $1.5 trillion on a health care program that doesn't even cover everyone is a 'good thing'....because at least Obama is trying to do something.

Nevermind the military....Obama is spending recklessly on everthing. Biggest deficit ever....and its only going to get bigger.

USA. Great while it lasted.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The health care system in the U.S. proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: private industry is not always more efficient. Quite apart from being unfair, quite apart from creating hardship for the poor.... the US health care system costs more than any other health care system in the developed world. Health care costs are out of control there.

Here, I'll provide you some costs for Obamacare.

You'll probably ignore them, just like all big government people do when it comes to things like this because they think the government is actually more efficient when it comes to things like this.

According to the CBO, the best estimates for ObamaCare put the cost at $1.6 trillion over 10 years, with a benefit of 20 million people getting insurance who aren't now (out of 47 million). Divided by 10 years, this comes out to $8000/person/year, or $666.66/person/month. Bear in mind, this includes children; the spending for an uninsured family of four per year works out to $32,000, not $8000. Also bear in mind that the 20 million will not be insured immediately, but for the sake of simplifying the numbers, we'll say they will be from day 1, for all 10 years.

$666/person/month.

Family of 4(normal for most people) = $2600/month for government provided health care that doesn't even cover everyone.

If you look around from state to state at existing coverage plans, there are only a few that are THAT expensive, and just about all of them are for people over the age of 60.

Secondly, you're forgetting about the bureaucracy's overhead. Of the $666, $49 will be given to insurance companies with the mandate that they provide full coverage for it. The Washington bureaucracy will soak up the remaining $617.

Just like it always has.

So, for $49/month, insurance companies will be expected to provide coverage. I wonder how long that will be sustainable until something goes bankrupt.

Even amongst the Democrats, there is apparently a 'silent majority' saying that Obama/Congress should slow down and make sure all bases are covered here.

Because they plan is nothing more than another government program that will cost Americans billions but in the end the cost won't be worth the coverage that will be provided.

How's THAT for efficient?

[Blaster86]

"Hi, my name is Azure, and I have been eating sour grapes since McCain lost."

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Wait--so, if government intervention isn't the right idea, who's going to 'clean up' insurance premiums?

The health care system in the U.S. proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: private industry is not always more efficient. Quite apart from being unfair, quite apart from creating hardship for the poor.... the US health care system costs more than any other health care system in the developed world. Health care costs are out of control there.

I think it might be time for some government intervention, personally. I also think it's interesting that the Canadian health care system costs less than half as much as a percentage of GDP, yet has far better health care outcomes across the board. Our system isn't perfect... but how many of us would trade with the Americans?

I'm guessing not too many. I've experienced health care on both sides of the border; we have it pretty good up here.

Interesting statement, considering the USA doesn't even have a free market health care system... Heavily regulated cartel of private and public companies with stuff like medicare and medicaid sprinkled on top is not a free market system, not by a long shot.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

"Hi, my name is Azure, and I have been eating sour grapes since McCain lost."

Thats strange, because McCain was an idiot too.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

"Hi, my name is Azure, and I have been eating sour grapes since McCain lost."

Tell us more about who got hit by a tree.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Tell us more about who got hit by a tree.

Megatron. Optimus hit him with it, so your arguement is irrelevent...

Hey wait, I see what you did there!

[starseed]

If those estimates are correct (and I have no idea because I have not seen the numbers) then I would say the government would have succeeded in lowering healthcare costs... at least thats what I gather after reading this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29355231/

The report found health care costs will average $8,160 this year for every man, woman and child, an increase of $356 per person from last year.
Meanwhile, the number of uninsured has risen to about 48 million, according to a new estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The government statisticians estimated that health costs will reach $13,100 per person in 2018, accounting for $1 out of every $5 spent in the economy.

Without doing the math, that would be cutting something like 30%... which is pretty significant.

I have not really seen anyone do the math, maybe my google powers are failing me.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Second worst based on what link? I assume you are citing a study, not your own opinion.

I don't necessarily think the problem is with Canada's SYSTEM, but rather the implementation. There has been a lot of talk this week that health care is 13% of the U.S. economy. It's 10% here. That's still a huge number.

Hospitals, including maintenance costs, are $42.4 billion per year.
Drug costs are $24.8 billion per year.
Doctors cost $18.2 billion per year.
Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are $13.3 billion per year.

With other expenses, we get up to $142 billion per year. Our per capita spending on health care is $4,400. There are many other countries with single-payer systems that pay much less than that for better service.

I'm citing what I'm learning in my Health Systems class that I'm taking right now in medical school (Their are tons of studies on this subject matter, just search "health systems" in medline). I'm not going to go through a 100 studies and write out a report for you with references behind every statement. This is an online message board for God sake, take it easy, these are the types of places you are supposed to analyze your opinion. Besides, for every paper saying Canada is 2nd worst in 1 category, you could find 3 others saying the opposite, everybody knows that. It is just about reading through all the material and forming an opinion based on what is said. All I was saying is that it is funny how much some Canadians laugh at the US system, when in reality Canadians have one of the worst healthcare systems themselves.

Canada has a problem with its system and implementation. Right now they graduate way less doctors and try their hardest to make them leave. If you are rich in Canada then it works the best because you get all your regular stuff covered and if you need an emergency treatment that is beneficial to be performed sooner you can just hop on a plane down to the US and get it done.

Realistically no country has 1 ideal health system. Take a look at a country like Taiwan who hired a team of people to go analyze the health systems in the top developed countries and then use that analysis to develop their own. They do have a very good health care system but it definitely has some holes.

[Azure]

Well, a lot can happen between now and 2018, so the estimate is probably not correct. Could be higher, could be lower.

Either way, that doesn't matter. Obamacare still costs $8,000/person/year, which is roughly what average health care costs are now.

This 30% cutting is YOUR idea, based on a predicted cost in 20 years. Cost could be more, cost could be less. But, knowing how government programs are, they usually underestimate a LOT what something is going to cost, so health care could cost up to $4 trillion in 20 years.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by I wanna be like Miikka

I'm citing what I'm learning in my Health Systems class that I'm taking right now in medical school (Their are tons of studies on this subject matter, just search "health systems" in medline). I'm not going to go through a 100 studies and write out a report for you with references behind every statement. This is an online message board for God sake, take it easy, these are the types of places you are supposed to analyze your opinion. Besides, for every paper saying Canada is 2nd worst in 1 category, you could find 3 others saying the opposite, everybody knows that. It is just about reading through all the material and forming an opinion based on what is said. All I was saying is that it is funny how much some Canadians laugh at the US system, when in reality Canadians have one of the worst healthcare systems themselves.

"I can make a very grandiose statement and not back it up if I want too. Why are you calling me on this? It's a message board, I can have outlandish opinions without backing them up! You shouldn't ask me to back it up!"

I like how you basically concede your entire arguement by saying, "I heard something in class once," then move on too, "Well for every one you find saying something bad you will find three more saying it isn't." I dunno, when the odds are 3 to 1, I tend to side with the three. Especially since, according to you, every bad one I find will just double the numbers.

There are opinions: "I personally think Canada has the second worst system behind the United States."

Then there is what you said: "The US has the worst healthcare out of developed countries, with Canada following as the 2nd worst."

That's you trying to pass your opinion off as fact and he had every reason to call you on it.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, a lot can happen between now and 2018, so the estimate is probably not correct. Could be higher, could be lower.

Either way, that doesn't matter. Obamacare still costs $8,000/person/year, which is roughly what average health care costs are now.

This 30% cutting is YOUR idea, based on a predicted cost in 20 years. Cost could be more, cost could be less. But, knowing how government programs are, they usually underestimate a LOT what something is going to cost, so health care could cost up to $4 trillion in 20 years.

I was just taking the estimated number of 1.5T over 10 years, and your estimate of 8K per year per person over 10 years then comparing it to what that article said the status quo would be. Which would be an average of ~10.5K per year per person over the next nine years... which would mean that Obama's plan would cut costs by more than 30%.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by starseed

I was just taking the estimated number of 1.5T over 10 years, and your estimate of 8K per year per person over 10 years then comparing it to what that article said the status quo would be. Which would be an average of ~10.5K per year per person over the next nine years... which would mean that Obama's plan would cut costs by more than 30%.

Again, the article is talking about costs in 20 years. The $1.5T over 10 years is an 'estimate' by the CBO. Nobody knows for sure what the actual cost will be in the end, or in 20 years.

Even the $1.5T could be a lot higher....considering this is a government program.

Bottom line....

Health care costs will top $8,000 per person this year, consuming an ever-bigger slice of a shrinking economic pie, says the report by the Department of Health and Human Services, due out Tuesday.

Which is basically what Obamacare is going to cost as well....going by the estimate by the CBO. Nothing gained there.

But, there are a few things to point out.

As the recession cuts into tax receipts, Medicare's giant hospital trust fund is running out of cash more rapidly, and could become insolvent as early as 2016, the report said. That's three years sooner than previously forecast.At the same time, the government's already large share of the nation's health care bill will keep growing.

Programs such as Medicaid are expanding to take up some of the slack as more people lose job-based coverage. And baby boomers will soon start reaching 65 and signing up for Medicare. Those trends together mean that taxpayers will be responsible for more than half of the nation's health care bill by 2016 — just seven years from now.

The health care cost forecast did not take into account recent legislation that expanded medical coverage for children of low income working parents, and added to the government's obligations.

All from your article. Now, its extremely hard to find the simple facts of the health care plan Obama is proposing, so correct me if I'm wrong here....but IIRC, the plan wouldn't change any of the existing government coverage, so all those costs would still exist.

So, while the NEW health care bill might only cost $1.5T over 10 years, what about the existing costs right now? Are all those going to be added in?

[I wanna be like Miikka]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

"I can make a very grandiose statement and not back it up if I want too. Why are you calling me on this? It's a message board, I can have outlandish opinions without backing them up! You shouldn't ask me to back it up!"

I like how you basically concede your entire arguement by saying, "I heard something in class once," then move on too, "Well for every one you find saying something bad you will find three more saying it isn't." I dunno, when the odds are 3 to 1, I tend to side with the three. Especially since, according to you, every bad one I find will just double the numbers.

There are opinions: "I personally think Canada has the second worst system behind the United States."

Then there is what you said: "The US has the worst healthcare out of developed countries, with Canada following as the 2nd worst."

That's you trying to pass your opinion off as fact and he had every reason to call you on it.

Hey man, lets take it to PM, Devils Advocate can join as well. I'll gladly answer any questions you guys have and go refer to the sources presented to me. I have my notes and papers right in front of me lol. No need to get all antsy about all of this. But I'm curious, I do have a lot of papers showing Canada as being 2nd worst in a variety of areas. In my opinion they are second worst in general. I'm wondering though, what fact or criteria do I need to reference that states Canada is 2nd worst in the world?? Doctors per 1000 patients, infant mortality rate, wait times, % Publicly funded, % of GDP spent on Healthcare??? Which stat would you need. Any paper stating Canada is second worse is simply based on an analysis of all of those numbers and the OPINIONS of the authors.

Also, the whole 3 to 1 discussion isn't supposed to be a specific ratio. It was just an example that if you wanted you could find references to form almost any opinion you want (especially when discussing the medical field). I didn't go do a report and statistically analyze the paper ratio. I'll try to be more careful with what I type because you seem to take it very seriously, just relax, PM me with any questions you have.

Anyways, please feel free to PM me with any questions or concerns and I can provide you with references. One thing to learn when debating healthcare, saying which one is better will always carry a degree of opinion, it isn't something that can be explained by one stat, it isn't an EXACT science.