# Emotion, few details, in Obama's health care pitch



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's another on of those examples of feeling instead of thinking. If you consider all of the ramifications to health this isn't a good idea. If you consider the economy it's an even worse idea. If you consider capitalism it's the death knell, and it's the same for this republic. This is simply a feel good socialist program, designed on the surface to appeal to the dependent type individuals.

For the full story:http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=%22death+knell&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNWE_enUS306US306&q=death+knell+definition



> Jul 1, 8:00 PM (ET)
> 
> By PHILIP ELLIOTT and CHARLES BABINGTON
> 
> ...


Further: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... definition



> White House Gibbs grilled over 'pre-packaged' questions for Obama...


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> It's another on of those examples of feeling instead of thinking. If you consider all of the ramifications to health this isn't a good idea. If you consider the economy it's an even worse idea. If you consider capitalism it's the death knell, and it's the same for this republic. This is simply a feel good socialist program, designed on the surface to appeal to the dependent type individuals.


You're making a HUGE mistake in assuming that the only people that Liberal ideas appeal to are the types dependent on the government. I'm not even CLOSE to dependent on the government, but I like the healthcare reform from a pragmatic standpoint. Every country that's done it saves boatloads of money while keeping quality very high. Call it what you want. It's the smart thing to do. I'm just worried that they'll do it half-way.

Are Western European countries not "capitalist"? Are they not democracies? Of course they are. You're just claiming the sky is falling because it serves your interest. We'll be fine...

Interestingly enough, there was a study just released about the effect of Medicare part D. It found that providing drugs to people with little or no drug coverage SAVED Medicare about as much money on healthcare costs as they spent on the drugs!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Are Western European countries not "capitalist"? Are they not democracies? Of course they are.


It would be tough to call any of these countries pure democracies anymore. They still have the freedom to vote, but through taxes and government programs they are more socialist than anything else.

You say they save boatloads of money. How do they do that deny services to the old, the infirm who can not work and contribute? I often hear someone say they have a friend or relative in a country that has socialized medicine and they just love it. Strange, because I have as many friends and relatives in Canada, Norway, etc and they don't like it. I hear some stories that are just hard to believe. What conclusion can I come to, that these guys are just partisan bs'ers or what? Why the stark difference in what we hear from relatives?

The worst part about all of this is once the government starts taxing and providing services, and redistributing wealth we are socialist completely.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

By that standard, we haven't been a "pure democracy" in a very long time. At that point, we're arguing semantics.

Anecdotal evidence is almost always bad. Statistically, they're fine, when you compare mortality rates for the same diseases (life expectancy get used a lot, but it's totally unfair). How bad can it be over-all if Canadians voted Tommy Douglas (the guy responsible for their system) as the greatest Canadian? http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/. We wait plenty, here, as well.

They all save the money in different ways. A couple examples: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

If the care is so good in other country's why do people come to the USA to get health care?

Please answer me that. I am not talking specialist type situations.(transplants, rare diseases, etc.)

Please tell me why the mayo clinic of rochester mn has people from canada, sweeden, norway, etc come over for health care if these countries with united health care systems are so good?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Back on topic.......

Obama wants to put a "face" on health care because it pulls at heart strings. Then when you have people vote with their hearts instead of their minds he will get what he wants.

I have yet seen facts that this system is the way to go. Everything I have seen or what obama has said is all smoke and mirrors. He says it will lower prices.....HOW?


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> If the care is so good in other country's why do people come to the USA to get health care?
> 
> Please answer me that. I am not talking specialist type situations.(transplants, rare diseases, etc.)
> 
> Please tell me why the mayo clinic of rochester mn has people from canada, sweeden, norway, etc come over for health care if these countries with united health care systems are so good?


The number of wealthy patients from Arab countries was way down at Mayo in recent years, but way up in France. It seems we don't have the lock on quality care that you think we do.

Different hospitals have different reputations, and rich people have choices. If I had a rare condition, and I was told I had to go to either Johns Hopkins or MeritCare. I'd pick Johns Hopkins, but MeritCare is just fine. Both of those are in the US. That's not an example of there being something wrong with the US system.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

> He says it will lower prices.....HOW?


Computerized medical records, for one. Taiwan's overhead is unbelievably low because they have a single-payer system and are heavily computerized.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The number of wealthy patients from Arab countries was way down at Mayo in recent years, but way up in France. It seems we don't have the lock on quality care that you think we do.


You side stepped the questions.....I was not talking about Arab nations. I was talking about canada, sweden, norway, etc.



> Different hospitals have different reputations, and rich people have choices. If I had a rare condition, and I was told I had to go to either Johns Hopkins or MeritCare. I'd pick Johns Hopkins, but MeritCare is just fine. Both of those are in the US. That's not an example of there being something wrong with the US system.


I am also not talking about rich people. Middle class people......I will tell you what some people from canada told me. It is because they don't have to wait for care.

Also again......please tell me how this new health insurance system will lower costs?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Computerized medical records, for one. Taiwan's overhead is unbelievably low because they have a single-payer system and are heavily computerized.


*Is this health insurance or the way hospitals do business? *

Again how will revamping Health Insurance make costs lower? Getting an extra 50 million americans (that number keeps increasing) coverage is going to lower my Health Insurance costs? HOW????

All smoke and mirrors so far.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

If it's just waiting time, why Mayo? Canadians drive by hundreds of Hospitals on their way to Rochester, even if they're from Thunder Bay or Emerson, and it's not like the Europeans are getting direct flights to Rochester, MN. The absolute CLOSEST they could land without making a connection would be Minneapolis, assuming they're even flying commercial. If it were just about us having less waiting, they could pick any other hospital. They pick Mayo either because of the reputation, or because other US hospitals don't offer anything they can't get at home. If it's reputation, my mentioning of the Arab countries is more than a side-step. There are clearly some very reputable hospitals in other parts of the world, including France, which has a system you wouldn't back here. So, it can't just be the insurance system that dictates the quality of care.

The majority of Canadians, for example, don't ever experience the long waiting times (as if we don't have our own problems with that... my wife waits months to get into her neurologist for chronic migraines), and that their statistical quality is every bit as good as ours. On average, they like their system, even if there are some anecdotal problems.

As far as the costs: making insurance companies compete with a not-for-profit, low-overhead government insurer would lower your cost by forcing them to trim their margins (which the current oligopoly has never forced them to do), and to find other cost savings. The other thing is that there's more in the reform bill than insurance provisions.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The majority of Canadians, for example, don't ever experience the long waiting times (as if we don't have our own problems with that... my wife waits months to get into her neurologist for chronic migraines), and that their statistical quality is every bit as good as ours. On average, they like their system, even if there are some anecdotal problems.


That's what I was talking about before. Someone always knows someone that likes the Canadian system. Like I said why is it the people you talk to the opposite of the people I talk to. My grandfathers brother moved from Minnesota to Saskatchewan back in the late 1800's. Now I have nearly as many relatives around Kennedy, Saskatchewan as I do North Dakota. They all hate the system, but people keep telling us they know people who like it. They also don't go all the way to Mayo Clinic, if they need fast medical attention they go to Minot, North Dakota.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Do you really think more competition will lower costs?

Do you know how the insurance industry works? The perfect model is every $$$ taken in on premiums is paid out. So a break even. Now yes companies show profits. But you know what happens to those profits.....they get given to hospitals in grants, studies, etc. They also have to invest in re-insurance. Some goes to bonuses. But not as much as people think. Call your health insurance provider and ask them where all the "profits" went. You will be amazed.

My question is this why are 5 states going to take this Health Care "reform" to court if it gets passed if it is so good?

Edit:

Do people know how premiums are generated??? They take a risk and see how much it will cost to insure that risk a year (break even). A person of good health it will cost less. A person of poor health it will cost more. They do it now.

How the companies make profit is if people don't use the insurance. Then they don't pay out that premium. but if people use more than they paid in.....it needs to be made up somewhere. Re-insurance and unused premiums.

So as *MEDICAL COSTS* rise so does premiums. So just having another insurance company will do nothing in lowering insurance costs. So as Type II diabeties is on the rise, obesity on the rise, baby boomers health issues on the rise....so will premiums.

SO again.....how will this plan help lower insurance costs? Because all you hear obama preach is 50 million uninsured people. Also they will not take into consideration previous health conditions.......how will that lower premiums when the care will cost more????


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

> Call your health insurance provider and ask them where all the "profits" went. You will be amazed.


A quick look at United Health's SEC filings says they paid out $36 Million in dividends last quarter... You're right... I'm amazed...

If the introduction of Medicare Part D is any indication, there will be some medical cost savings in preventive care. Hospitals improving their record keeping will save us money. Other savings will be from insurers eating into their margins and streamlining their processes. I don't care where the savings comes from. I just want to know that I'll be able to get insurance if I get sick and lose my job.

What _should_ he be telling uninsured people with preexisting conditions? "Tough crap"? It's pretty short-sighted to think that couldn't be you or me, but for a twist of fate.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> $36 Million in dividends


 Now where did all those dividends get allocated......some I am sure when to grants, studies, re-investments, state run programs which they have to donate back to, etc.



> What should he be telling uninsured people with preexisting conditions? "Tough crap"? It's pretty short-sighted to think that couldn't be you or me, but for a twist of fate.


By all means no don't tell them tough crap. But where is the $$$$ going to come from to pay for care?



> Medicare


Just that alone scares me. Do you know medicare goes in and tells hospitals what they will pay for a procedure. But they they will give aid to private insurance companies to pay for procedures. So they set a price and will give their "competition" more money so they can pay more to hospitals and doctors for the same procedure.



> I just want to know that I'll be able to get insurance if I get sick and lose my job.


You can......put you have to pay for it. I am self employed. I have to pay for all my medical costs. If I become unemployed i still have to go out and find a way to pay for my insurance. Or you can go on the state aid programs that are out there now. In MN it is MN Care. I am sure ND has a program.

------------------------ side note ---------------------------------

If this health care goes through and they start to tax employers on the health coverages. What you will see happen is employers will not hire employee's. They will hire independent contractors. Yep a secretary will be an "independent contractor" so then they won't have to provide anything and just pay the secretary direct so that the secretary will be responsible for their own health care. Mark my word this will happen.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> Now where did all those dividends get allocated......some I am sure when to grants, studies, re-investments, state run programs which they have to donate back to, etc.


Nope. Those are the checks they cut to shareholders.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Started a new post....

Again where is all this money going to come from to pay for all of these people to get insurance in the federal program? Not by premiums.

So to keep premiums low and give quality care where is the money going to come from?

More questions Obama is side stepping.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Nope. Those are the checks they cut to shareholders.


Are you 100% sure?

But if it is checks cut to shareholders......that is not bonuses to workers unless they own stock. So it is investors who are making the money. So people who were smart and invested in a company needs to pay. Lets make all the people who invested in micro soft pay for new computers for everyone.



> Just that alone scares me. Do you know medicare goes in and tells hospitals what they will pay for a procedure. But they they will give aid to private insurance companies to pay for procedures. So they set a price and will give their "competition" more money so they can pay more to hospitals and doctors for the same procedure.


Do you think this is also why profits are high? They can take the money medicare gives them and just pocket it. What a great way to save your own money.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

> Are Western European countries not "capitalist"? Are they not democracies?


hmmmm..the mullahs call Iran a democracy too! :roll:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

> Hospitals improving their record keeping will save us money. Other savings will be from insurers eating into their margins and streamlining their processes.


at this point, this is all conjecture. many administrative medical experts have said the savings will be minor and many, many years away from being realized, if ever. in the meantime, we borrow 1.6 trillion to jump start another government program, that STARTS in the hole??

sounds like California politics and policies to me....yeah, "we'll pay for it later"....now, how's THAT SAME PLAN workin' out for you Californians??


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

omegax said:


> > Call your health insurance provider and ask them where all the "profits" went. You will be amazed.
> 
> 
> A quick look at United Health's SEC filings says they paid out $36 Million in dividends last quarter... You're right... I'm amazed...
> ...


United Health is a health provider, see how much Blue Cross Blue Shield paid out in dividends.


----------

