Bush and Obama

[MikeWaters]

First Bush gives us the no-cost war. No new taxes, no sacrifice--you don't even need to pay attention!

Now Obama gives us no-cost healthcare. A trillion dollars, and you won't have to pay a cent! Why? Because someone else will pay it for you!

Don't you love America? Where you can do anything with no cost. The only reason California is in shambles is they can't run a deficit like Obama can. Otherwise, they would be full-forward on the "you can have everything at no cost" government.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

First Bush gives us the no-cost war. No new taxes, no sacrifice--you don't even need to pay attention!

Now Obama gives us no-cost healthcare. A trillion dollars, and you won't have to pay a cent! Why? Because someone else will pay it for you!

Don't you love America? Where you can do anything with no cost. The only reason California is in shambles is they can't run a deficit like Obama can. Otherwise, they would be full-forward on the "you can have everything at no cost" government.

Come on, Waters. This is pretty disingenuous. You are already paying a huge portion of the $1 trillion estimate (which was long ago revised to $670 billion by the CBO, if you were paying attention) through your health care premiums because you are paying for the millions of uninsureds in this nation who are receiving health care. Who do you think pays for them to get care right now? Nobody? Please note further that the $670 billion estimate is over 10 years (i.e., $67 billion per year). Remarkably cheap, if you ask me, particularly when you think of all the savings we could have through better preventative care, along with recoupment of costs through insurance mandates (which you ironically don't favor).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Come on, Waters. This is pretty disingenuous. You are already paying a huge portion of the $1 trillion estimate (which was long ago revised to $670 billion by the CBO, if you were paying attention) through your health care premiums because you are paying for the millions of uninsureds in this nation who are receiving health care. Who do you think pays for them to get care right now? Nobody? Please note further that the $670 billion estimate is over 10 years (i.e., $67 billion per year). Remarkably cheap, if you ask me, particularly when you think of all the savings we could have through better preventative care, along with recoupment of costs through insurance mandates (which you ironically don't favor).

pray tell, what preventative care have you received in the past year?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

pray tell, what preventative care have you received in the past year?

This is precisely why we need reform.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This is precisely why we need reform.

it's not true to say that preventative care saves money. Not even when you limit the scope of savings to just healthcare costs.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

Of course, when you expand your inquiry to beyond healthcare costs, it becomes more tenuous.

For example, would we save money if everyone quit smoking cigarettes? No, because we would be paying out a lot more for social security and medicare and other entitlements.

Do we save money if everyone gets prostate cancer screening? Highly doubtful. We will spend a lot of money for not a lot of benefit, and many people will be harmed unnecessarily in order to "treat" the supposed suspected cancer. Many more than will be helped.

Do we save money by putting in 50,000$ defibrillators in every fat slob in America? Doubtful. Sick people living longer is not savings.

Unhealthy people, combined with expensive technology, procedures, and medications--living longer. Someone explain to me how this saves money.

It's pretty simple to figure out why the AMA supports Obamacare. Adding millions and millions of paying customers will increase demand for physicians, will boost salaries/reimbursements (at least in the short-term). But then when the public sees the price tag (which will be grossly underestimated), there will be serious sticker shock, and that's when the draconian government controls will come in, which will include price controls and rationing.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it's not true to say that preventative care saves money. Not even when you limit the scope of savings to just healthcare costs.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

Of course, when you expand your inquiry to beyond healthcare costs, it becomes more tenuous.

For example, would we save money if everyone quit smoking cigarettes? No, because we would be paying out a lot more for social security and medicare and other entitlements.

Do we save money if everyone gets prostate cancer screening? Highly doubtful. We will spend a lot of money for not a lot of benefit, and many people will be harmed unnecessarily in order to "treat" the supposed suspected cancer. Many more than will be helped.

Do we save money by putting in 50,000$ defibrillators in every fat slob in America? Doubtful. Sick people living longer is not savings.

Unhealthy people, combined with expensive technology, procedures, and medications--living longer. Someone explain to me how this saves money.

It's pretty simple to figure out why the AMA supports Obamacare. Adding millions and millions of paying customers will increase demand for physicians, will boost salaries/reimbursements (at least in the short-term). But then when the public sees the price tag (which will be grossly underestimated), there will be serious sticker shock, and that's when the draconian government controls will come in, which will include price controls and rationing.

Seriously? You are going to argue that preventative care doesn't save any money? That will put you soundly in the minority. 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.

You haven't provided any of the data I requested (particularly with respect to your claim that the CBO says Medicare costs more than private insurance). Please do so and we can address your arguments in an orderly manner.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Seriously? You are going to argue that preventative care doesn't save any money? That will put you soundly in the minority.

You haven't provided any of the data I requested (particularly with respect to your claim that the CBO says Medicare costs more than private insurance). Please do so and we can address your arguments in an orderly manner.

I didn't provide you with what you imagined I said. Dumbass.

Go back and read what I said.

On preventative care, I guess you have never heard of the New England Journal of Medicine. "Preventative care saves money" is a soundbyte. It is something repeated so often, that it is taken as true.

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical. Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).

So remember this when God/Obama touts the massive savings that will be realized through "preventative care." Just not true.

[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.

[MikeWaters]

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.

<crickets> <locusts> <the plaintive bleat of a calf>

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I didn't provide you with what you imagined I said. Dumbass.

Go back and read what I said.

Then you tell me what you meant. Because this is what you said, and it sounds an awful lot like what I described:

"so now you are claiming cost savings? CBO doesn't agree with you. Sure Medicare has less in the way of administrative cost."

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...36&postcount=8

On preventative care, I guess you have never heard of the New England Journal of Medicine. "Preventative care saves money" is a soundbyte. It is something repeated so often, that it is taken as true.

So remember this when God/Obama touts the massive savings that will be realized through "preventative care." Just not true.

I have heard of it. The clear weight of the evidence is against them (which you surely know).