Bush and Obama

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

See, Cali, what you and Obama don't get is that the argument is not about cost-savings.

The argument is about equity and longer life and improved health, the cost be damned.

"It's going to be helluva expensive, for every American. But it is worth it."

That's the argument that you should be making. But you won't. Because you are dishonest. Along with Obama.

Actually, it is about both. If you had bothered to read just a few posts earlier, you would have seen that I DID make that argument, as well as the argument that it provides cost savings.

"Even ASSUMING it doesn't save any money, it certainly is a better overall result than a world without preventative care (quality of life improves, length of life improves, etc), so this strikes me as a bit of a desperate argument on your part."

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...45&postcount=6

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Actually, it is about both. If you had bothered to read just a few posts earlier, you would have seen that I DID make that argument, as well as the argument that it provides cost savings.

"Even ASSUMING it doesn't save any money, it certainly is a better overall result than a world without preventative care (quality of life improves, length of life improves, etc), so this strikes me as a bit of a desperate argument on your part."

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...45&postcount=6

so you like to mix both your true feelings and lies?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so you like to mix both your true feelings and lies?

That doesn't even make sense.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That doesn't even make sense.

why do you feel compelled to tell us that Obamacare saves us money?

It's better than FREE! It puts money in our pockets!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

why do you feel compelled to tell us that Obamacare saves us money?

It's better than FREE! It puts money in our pockets!

Saves us money compared to what we spend right now, and yes, it would. That doesn't make it free (are you looking for a free plan? because I don't think that is reasonable).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Saves us money compared to what we spend right now, and yes, it would. That doesn't make it free (are you looking for a free plan? because I don't think that is reasonable).

CBO says it does not drive down healthcare over at least the next 10 years.

Of course, even though medicare and medicaid, pre-Obama, threatened to bankrupt the nation, now by EXPANDING the programs, WE WILL SAVE MONEY!

If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

CBO says it does not drive down healthcare over at least the next 10 years.

Of course, even though medicare and medicaid, pre-Obama, threatened to bankrupt the nation, now by EXPANDING the programs, WE WILL SAVE MONEY!

If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.

No, that isn't what the CBO said. The CBO said under one proposed House plan re healthcare, federal government expenditures would increase over the next ten years (duh) and that additional measures (in one version of a House bill) would need to be taken to obtain revenue neutrality. The CBO most certainly did NOT say that proposed reforms will not drive down health care costs in the US in the aggregate over the next ten years, which is your argument.

Obviously as a public option is introduced, federal expenditures related to health care will increase. I would think that goes without saying. Regardless, it will reduce the overall costs of health care in multiple ways: 1) introducing real competition in the health care field (which the CBO agrees would occur under at least the Wyden plan and the CBO says would NOT result in eliminating private competition); 2) obtain additional revenue through premium payments from those who are currently uninsured but who would have to be insured (due to mandates) under new plans; 3) eliminating, or dramatically reducing, the economic rent paid to insurance companies; and 4) focusing on preventative care, thereby greatly reducing many expensive health care procedures which would no longer be necessary.

Please note that you are also getting tripped up on the fact that CBO estimates are specific to certain proposals under consideration in the House and Senate (I believe there are now about 10 in total). Some plans, like the Wyden plan (my favorite), have cost estimates over a decade of only $670 billion (insanely cheap for what we are proposing). You would do well to read up on some of the plans under consideration (rather than focusing on just the one you seem to disagree with). For example, you said in the link below that you want to divorce healthcare from employment.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26246

That's what the Wyden plan would largely do. Employer plans would be taxed, and such taxes would be the primary payment mechanism for the plan (the CBO says the Wyden plan is revenue neutral).

Your concerns about having sick people nobody would want to insure are precisely the reasons why the Wyden plan (and others) prohibit rejecting people based on preexisting conditions and create a public plan (so such people aren't priced out of insurance).

You also want to incentivize people to get insurance. Problem solved- they are required to obtain insurance or they are fined. The insurance they can buy would, at a minimum, provide levels of coverage equal to those obtainable through the public option.

You recognize there is a big problem. You recognize it needs to change. You recognize people must be insured. You recognize there must be a basic minimum standard of care provided.

Now you just need to recognize that solutions to your issues are what is being proposed.

[MikeWaters]

Here's the problem with insurance not being able to reject people--all the sickest people will gravitate to the plan with the best benefits (best benefits for people who intend to use a lot of services) and those plans will collapse under the weight.

Case in point: my work offered two plans--HMO and PPO. HMO was more expensive as far as premiums, but much cheaper if you knew that you had medical problems, or might be hospitalized (i.e. have a baby). PPO was cheaper as far as premiums, and if you didn't use much in the way of services, cheaper over all.

The sick people chose HMO, the healthy people chose PPO. HMO went under. So now all we have left is the PPO.

The person that uses a million dollars a year in healthcare costs, year after year, will do a real number on your premium.

[MikeWaters]

Btw, do us a favor Cali and stop basing all your arguments on the one plan, among the dozens, that includes a tax that Obama is against, the unions are against, that GOP is against, that a majority of the American public are against, that has literally miniscule chance of passage. Taxation of healthcare benefits is not going to happen.

Let me know when you rejoin reality.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Btw, do us a favor Cali and stop basing all your arguments on the one plan, among the dozens, that includes a tax that Obama is against, the unions are against, that GOP is against, that a majority of the American public are against, that has literally miniscule chance of passage. Taxation of healthcare benefits is not going to happen.

Let me know when you rejoin reality.

I would guess they Wyden plan is the most likely of all of them to be passed. It has several Republican co-sponsors, enjoys wide popularity in the House, and Wyden has positioned himself to be one of the "gang of six" who may potentially hold up any other bill in the Senate (he has the support of Snow, Collins, and at least 4 Democrats).

The tax provision will be tricky to negotiate, and perhaps that provision will be swapped out with a tax on the top 1%, but it most certainly isn't guaranteed right now. Note Geithner's statement today about new taxes (perhaps a trial balloon to see how the public would respond if Obama reneged on his promise not to raise any taxes for those under $250000 through a tax like a benefits tax- although the benefits tax could also be structured to only impact those with over $250000 in income).

I am surprised you are so unfamiliar with all of this, given your profession.