[Beetle01]

Fine, let's take it from the top.

(1) - Your point disregards the fact that insurance costs now are less than half the 20 thousand mark we are all headed for.

(2) - 10 thousand times less huh, is this supposed to be a serious post? So what you're telling us is that if Jane U (uninsured) Doe, goes to the ER once a week to get treated for an imaginary, or real, case of sinusitis. Just for the sake of demonstration let's say it costs $100 dollars for each visit. But, if she had insurance it would only cost one penny for that same visit. WOW! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

(3) - You're talking about TORT Reform here, making my and everybody else's insurance go through the roof along with the government take over of one sixth of the entire American economy under the overreach of ObamaCare is like shooting a mosquito off your nose with a 12 gauge. Republicans have brought this up thousands of times and the electorate is too comfortable to take a position on TORT Reform.

(4) - Again, nobody goes untreated in this country. Regardless, I've listened to a lot of doctors speak on the matter and they say (and have written a number of good books on the matter) there are far better ways to improve the system. I personally prefer Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery Dr Ben Carson at Johns Hopkins Hospital point of view about all of this. For the record, I've never come close to indicating on here or anywhere, that I am for not treating sick folks.

Freedom doesn't mean utopia. Contrary to the "Great Society" vision of the liberals of Lyndon Baines Johnson's day, we will never be in a position to 'buy' all of the problems of the American citizenry.

(5) - Circular logic. Like playing hot potato. You pass that potato on and the next guy still gets burned. You're not changing a thing with federally mandated health care except that those who are forced to pay will have the full faith and force of the federal government of the United States of America to contend with on bill payment, and they don't take many prisoners.

1) I think it is very hard to project costs, based off current costs. I am of the belief, and I may be wrong, that if hospitals and doctors don't have to make up the costs of treating the uninsured, that the overall costs of treatment/procedures will go down? If insurance companies are paying less for treatments, won't the cost of premiums likewise trend downwards? Have insurance costs not already double in the last 7 or 8 years anyways? Obviously some type of change is needed.

2) She gets a CT of the head, every single visit, that alone is $1,000 dollars, then you have the radiologists, ER MD's, hospital fees, blood work, urinalysis, medications, x-rays, and on and on, and I estimated her bill was somewhere between 5k low end to 9k high end, per visit, then you multiply that by her 40 or so visits a year (I'll use 5k), which is around 200k in medical costs a year.

Now, if she is established with a family doc, she would likely only need to visit the doctor a few times a year. Check ups, etc.. because the family doctor can start her on a regimen of medication, medications that can be refilled, and are for more than a week. So the visit which costs 100 bucks a few times a year, we'll say 400 dollars total, is far less than what it costs for her treatment at the hospital. 200,000/400= 500, so yeah my 10,000 times less was an exaggeration, but let's not focus that, and instead focus on the important issue that concerns us all, the cost. Like I stated, one way or another we are paying for that woman's ER visits, whether it's through tax funded reimbursements to the hospital, or increased costs for our care, which on also increase the costs of our insurance. My health insurance is 100% free, and if I stay within my hospital, it is all 100% free. Obamacare will have no effect on me at all. However, I do want to see change, so that people who don't have the benefits I do through their job, can still receive the high quality care they deserve, without breaking their bank account. I have seen families absolutely destroyed financially because a family member has a disease, not to even mention the added emotional stress this adds to an already devastating situation.

3) I did not bring that up, to say that it should be changed, I put that in there, so those that were reading would understand why a patient would receive the same tests for the same complaint, even if they come in every week.

4) There may be other solutions, I am about to read a book by Dr. Ben Carson - America the Beautiful. Not sure if he will discuss this in that particular book or not. However, TRT, feel free to add those ideas to this discussion. One thing about me, is I am not the type of person who is unwilling to change their mind on a subject, I can be convinced to see a different point of view. I really like Dr. Carson, and if he ever becomes a serious candidate for office will look more into his stances on different issues. I'm sure that book will help in that regard.

5) I would much prefer a solution that doesn't involve the federal govt, if you can show me a solution that allows for the care of all individuals, brings the cost of healthcare back down, helps stabilize the healthcare industry, and doesn't involve the government. I have no doubt that I would support that solution.

[Wildcatk23]

Sorry to hear that. Torn muscles are an attention grabber for sure. But, I'm proud of you for paying off you're medical bill, a lot don't.

I payed 50$ a month until it was payed off. With student loans, mortgage, 500+ electricity bill and many many more it was all I could afford. I'm in a better position now that my wife's union finally came to a contract with ARH for the next few years to get back to school and work part time . It's a great feeling knowing I will be finished and have my bachelors in just over 2 years.

[TheRealThing]

1) I think it is very hard to project costs, based off current costs. I am of the belief, and I may be wrong, that if hospitals and doctors don't have to make up the costs of treating the uninsured, that the overall costs of treatment/procedures will go down? If insurance companies are paying less for treatments, won't the cost of premiums likewise trend downwards? Have insurance costs not already double in the last 7 or 8 years anyways? Obviously some type of change is needed.

2) She gets a CT of the head, every single visit, that alone is $1,000 dollars, then you have the radiologists, ER MD's, hospital fees, blood work, urinalysis, medications, x-rays, and on and on, and I estimated her bill was somewhere between 5k low end to 9k high end, per visit, then you multiply that by her 40 or so visits a year (I'll use 5k), which is around 200k in medical costs a year.

Now, if she is established with a family doc, she would likely only need to visit the doctor a few times a year. Check ups, etc.. because the family doctor can start her on a regimen of medication, medications that can be refilled, and are for more than a week. So the visit which costs 100 bucks a few times a year, we'll say 400 dollars total, is far less than what it costs for her treatment at the hospital. 200,000/400= 500, so yeah my 10,000 times less was an exaggeration, but let's not focus that, and instead focus on the important issue that concerns us all, the cost. Like I stated, one way or another we are paying for that woman's ER visits, whether it's through tax funded reimbursements to the hospital, or increased costs for our care, which on also increase the costs of our insurance. My health insurance is 100% free, and if I stay within my hospital, it is all 100% free. Obamacare will have no effect on me at all. However, I do want to see change, so that people who don't have the benefits I do through their job, can still receive the high quality care they deserve, without breaking their bank account. I have seen families absolutely destroyed financially because a family member has a disease, not to even mention the added emotional stress this adds to an already devastating situation.

3) I did not bring that up, to say that it should be changed, I put that in there, so those that were reading would understand why a patient would receive the same tests for the same complaint, even if they come in every week.

4) There may be other solutions, I am about to read a book by Dr. Ben Carson - America the Beautiful. Not sure if he will discuss this in that particular book or not. However, TRT, feel free to add those ideas to this discussion. One thing about me, is I am not the type of person who is unwilling to change their mind on a subject, I can be convinced to see a different point of view. I really like Dr. Carson, and if he ever becomes a serious candidate for office will look more into his stances on different issues. I'm sure that book will help in that regard.

5) I would much prefer a solution that doesn't involve the federal govt, if you can show me a solution that allows for the care of all individuals, brings the cost of healthcare back down, helps stabilize the healthcare industry, and doesn't involve the government. I have no doubt that I would support that solution.

I believe all that you have mentioned here is attainable apart from a government take over. There are ways to expand medicare and some more free market solutions that would be much better options than a government medical system. And, as to the lady who has migraines. TORT reform would alleviate the worry and unnecessary tests and bru ha-ha associated with doctors having to protect themselves from a catastrophic law suit. Lawyers don't want that because it would tend to limit their chances at hitting the pot-O-gold. But, on to the perils of government spending. "The Democrats and President Obama have increased federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to 25.3%. Liberals often speak in terms of "historical spending," in the 20 plus percent range. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan looks to cap government spending at 18% of GDP. The claim is that the 18 percent number mirrors historic average levels of government spending. The debate here is not whether the left or the right is correct, it's that they are both wrong and guilty of advancing a myth that has been spoken so often it is blindly accepted as fact. In short, for the first 130 years of the U.S.'s 224 year existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%! At the height of the progressive movement (including FDR's New Deal) federal spending as a percentage of GDP never went above the 1934 level of 10.7%. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles...99063.html

Obama budget demands for 2014 amount to an incredible 3.77 trillion. So, CBO estimates place the cost of ObamaCare at one sixth of the US economy which has been running around 16 trillion dollars a year of late. That would mean we're looking at somewhere around 2.6 trillion dollars yearly. Before Obama got elected my monthly insurance premium was under 500 dollars a month or around 5,500 dollars a year. Soon my insurance costs will hit the 20,000 dollar per year mark. And that is for a 60% plan. In no way can you make me believe that I was paying almost 15,000 dollars a year in hidden costs somewhere and just didn't realize it. And, let's not forget Obama's promise that I my costs for insurance were to be only about 25 to 2,600 dollars a year by now. Face it, he didn't know what to expect, he just wanted to do it.

And, on a side note. This idea that this congress can pass legislation that requires some future congress to suffer the slings and arrows of spending cuts they are unwilling to make is ludacris. No future congress is beholden to the spending vision or lack of conviction to make their own spending cuts of this present congress. Most of these politicians are just trying to survive the next election. There are no spending cuts in the Obama budget proposal.

[Wildcatk23]

I believe all that you have mentioned here is attainable apart from a government take over. There are ways to expand medicare and some more free market solutions that would be much better options than a government medical system. And, as to the lady who has migraines. TORT reform would alleviate the worry and unnecessary tests and bru ha-ha associated with doctors having to protect themselves from a catastrophic law suit. Lawyers don't want that because it would tend to limit their chances at hitting the pot-O-gold. But, on to the perils of government spending. "The Democrats and President Obama have increased federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to 25.3%. Liberals often speak in terms of "historical spending," in the 20 plus percent range. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan looks to cap government spending at 18% of GDP. The claim is that the 18 percent number mirrors historic average levels of government spending. The debate here is not whether the left or the right is correct, it's that they are both wrong and guilty of advancing a myth that has been spoken so often it is blindly accepted as fact. In short, for the first 130 years of the U.S.'s 224 year existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%! At the height of the progressive movement (including FDR's New Deal) federal spending as a percentage of GDP never went above the 1934 level of 10.7%. http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles...99063.html

Obama budget demands for 2014 amount to an incredible 3.77 trillion. So, CBO estimates place the cost of ObamaCare at one sixth of the US economy which has been running around 16 trillion dollars a year of late. That would mean we're looking at somewhere around 2.6 trillion dollars yearly. Before Obama got elected my monthly insurance premium was under 500 dollars a month or around 5,500 dollars a year. Soon my insurance costs will hit the 20,000 dollar per year mark. And that is for a 60% plan. In no way can you make me believe that I was paying almost 15,000 dollars a year in hidden costs somewhere and just didn't realize it. And, let's not forget Obama's promise that I my costs for insurance were to be only about 25 to 2,600 dollars a year by now. Face it, he didn't know what to expect, he just wanted to do it.

And, on a side note. This idea that this congress can pass legislation that requires some future congress to suffer the slings and arrows of spending cuts they are unwilling to make is ludacris. No future congress is beholden to the spending vision or lack of conviction to make their own spending cuts of this present congress. Most of these politicians are just trying to survive the next election. There are no spending cuts in the Obama budget proposal.

You must have beetle confused with someone who likes Obama.

[TheRealThing]

And, on a side note. This idea that this congress can pass legislation that requires some future congress to suffer the slings and arrows of spending cuts they are unwilling to make is ludacris. No future congress is beholden to the spending vision or lack of conviction to make their own spending cuts of this present congress. Most of these politicians are just trying to survive the next election. There are no spending cuts in the Obama budget proposal.
Yesterday 09:29 PM



So, when we hear this administration ballyhoo on and on about how this president's budget will cut spending by 4 trillion dollars over the next decade we should ask ourselves if we really believe future congresses will do what Obama wants them to. I say that likelihood rocks the scale of 1 to 10, at about a minus zero. No, there are zero spending cuts, in fact, he wants to double down on government stimulus spending and plans to expand the national debt by 4 trillion dollars over the next four years. He's a bought and paid for Keynesian relic of the FDR era, pure and simple. Only he's added destructive levels of borrowing to the equation. And he is depending on some pretty outlandish percentages (3.5 % in the face of 0.4 % actual) of growth to do it. Historically, when a nation has a high level of debt, something we certainly have, fiscal growth is stymied. He also maintains that inflation will not go past 2.2 % inflation.

In other words, Obama is saying his budget places the US on a path of fiscal responsibility even though we are going to continue to run a trillion dollar plus deficit (borrowed money) every year because initially his intention was to borrow 1.5 trillion each year. And this whole house of cards is built on the premise that the economy will rebound to the tune of 4% growth each year of his remaining term and inflation will remain abated. At some point in time, the Fed will have fanned the irrational flames of those who chase fool's gold, ie the housing bubble and today's soaring stock market, and inflation will chew up the dollar despite any tricks to manipulate money they may have up their sleeve. The 2.2 % inflation plateau doesn't seem too likely in the eyes of most economists.

A lot of folks on this forum don't remember how badly high inflation rates cripple the economy. Everything ground to a halt during the Carter administration when inflation rates soared. Jobs, were just gone, house financing rates reached higher than 13%.

The point is this, it is upon these windfall growth projections that Obama plans to pay for universal health care and the well being of our entire land. Folks, it's on borrowed money. If the 177 plus nations presently in crisis status do go bankrupt, we will be dragged down with them. People, mostly liberals, try to make the argument on universal health care to revolve around moral precepts, as if the rich republicans would leave the sick and suffering laying in ditches beside the road as they roll by in luxury automobiles. Absurd though that idea is, it accomplishes liberal's real intention to divert folks attention away from the real problem. The economy isn't something that can be propped up by clever machinations from within Keynesian think tanks. There are long standing rules that govern economics and they're a matter of record. If the economy falls, what will good intentions backed up with inflated money or a collapsed economic system going to accomplish? We are a people who take care of our own, and we have done a good job at it. What ObamaCare proposes will put us all in that ditch.

[TheRealThing]

You must have beetle confused with someone who likes Obama.

I like Beetle's posts. I don't take this stuff personal. That is the nature of healthy debate. Many points that Beetle makes I agree with and as I have mentioned, he posts making points that come from his own thoughts and not talking points, a good thing in my mind. I only mention Obama because as he has put it, he's driving the bus right now.