OT: Followon to previous health care discussion...

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:54:35 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:

> RE: Subject
>
> Can we all say, "Trial Balloon"?
>
> Even the people who put the numbers together are questioning them.
>
> Like making sausage, before it's done, it WILL get messy.
>
> Lew

Now that's a point that all sides can agree on!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

RE: Subject

Can we all say, "Trial Balloon"?

Even the people who put the numbers together are questioning them.

Like making sausage, before it's done, it WILL get messy.

Lew

Dr. Deb wrote:
> What neither of you realize is the health program in this country is fixed,
> all the government is doing is a bit of tweaking.
>
> The reason I say that is a simple observance of the facts. Anything a
> liberal wishes to is, by that very effort of wishing, brought to fruition.
> The only thing that stops the liberal from making this whole world a
> paradise is those nasty conservatives who insist on taking off the rose
> colored glasses - or even worse, when they see the king butt naked,
> saying "Hey, the king doesn't have any clothes on." So you see, if the
> conservatives would "see the light" all the problems of the society would
> be solved by the desires of the liberals, merely because they desired it.
>
> Deb
>
>
>
>
>
> dpb wrote:
>
>> Given the lively debate the previous thread engendered, after the last
>> couple of days can _anyone_ still have an credence in the idea that
>> somehow there's magic in DC to add folks to the roles of the insured and
>> yet not add tremendous costs? Did anybody hear anything that had any
>> semblance of explaining how these massive cost-savings that were
>> promised are actually to be achieved? Or was I simply asleep already
>> when that happened????
>>
>> From NY Times today...
>>
>> "... an initial financial analysis by the Congressional Budget Office
>> showing that a main proposal for overhauling health care would cost $1
>> trillion over 10 years but would leave 36 million Americans uninsured.
>>
>> The preliminary analysis by the budget office...showed Democrats falling
>> far short of their goal, which is to provide insurance to all Americans
>> and offset the expense of doing so with new taxes or cost savings. ...
>>
>> In trying to answer ... basic questions about the cost analysis, the
>> Democrats exposed deep internal disagreements over how to pay for
>> revamping the health care system, with some pushing to tax
>> employer-provided health benefits above a pre-set limit, and others
>> preferring tax increases outside the health arena.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The cost-analysis also revealed some other potential consequences of the
>> Health committee bill, including the possibility that some children
>> could end up shifted off of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance
>> Program, which provide comprehensive health coverage, and instead be
>> required to obtain new insurance with less extensive benefits. ...
>>
>> But expanding coverage without adding to the deficit is looking like a
>> steeper challenge than even many of the leading proponents of a health
>> care overhaul had imagined."
>>
>> As my last comment previously noted, "Be careful what you wish for; you
>> might just get it."
>>
>> --
>
Well said, Deb. I have lived under "National Health" and it's very poor.

DGDevin wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>
>> Given the lively debate the previous thread engendered, after the last
>> couple of days can _anyone_ still have an credence in the idea that
>> somehow there's magic in DC to add folks to the roles of the insured
>> and yet not add tremendous costs? Did anybody hear anything that had
>> any semblance of explaining how these massive cost-savings that were
>> promised are actually to be achieved? Or was I simply asleep already
>> when that happened????
>
> What seems to be missing from many of these debates is the huge hidden costs
> we're all paying already because one in six Americans has no health
> insurance. Depending on which state you live in, eight to ten percent of
> what you pay for health insurance is shifted by the health care industry to
> cover their costs in treating uninsured patients, and that's aside from the
> umpteen billion tax dollars spent on such treatment. ...

But it will be even more hidden in anything I've seen proposed--payment
for health care programs will be essentially completely divorced from
the care itself via a multitude of taxes on everything from higher "sin"
taxes to the proposals for the highest tax ever conceived--C via "cap
and trade".

It's not that there aren't some reforms needed; it's that the only
things I've seen proposed aren't going to do anything that I can see
that will have any effect on the underlying causes; simply transfer the
cost to the public roles.

--

dpb wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>
>>> Given the lively debate the previous thread engendered, after the
>>> last couple of days can _anyone_ still have an credence in the idea
>>> that somehow there's magic in DC to add folks to the roles of the
>>> insured and yet not add tremendous costs? Did anybody hear
>>> anything that had any semblance of explaining how these massive
>>> cost-savings that were promised are actually to be achieved? Or
>>> was I simply asleep already when that happened????
>>
>> What seems to be missing from many of these debates is the huge
>> hidden costs we're all paying already because one in six Americans
>> has no health insurance. Depending on which state you live in,
>> eight to ten percent of what you pay for health insurance is shifted
>> by the health care industry to cover their costs in treating
>> uninsured patients, and that's aside from the umpteen billion tax
>> dollars spent on such treatment. ...
>
> But it will be even more hidden in anything I've seen
> proposed--payment for health care programs will be essentially
> completely divorced from the care itself via a multitude of taxes on
> everything from higher "sin" taxes to the proposals for the highest
> tax ever conceived--C via "cap and trade".
>
> It's not that there aren't some reforms needed; it's that the only
> things I've seen proposed aren't going to do anything that I can see
> that will have any effect on the underlying causes; simply transfer
> the cost to the public roles.

This century is likely to go down in history as "the crazy years" as
"government by the people" votes higher and higher and higher taxes until
everybody is getting so much free government services that after giving the
government everything they earn they still come out owing at the end of the
year.

Then some man on a white horse will shoot all the politicians and
bureaucrats and declare himself king.

dpb wrote:

> Given the lively debate the previous thread engendered, after the last
> couple of days can _anyone_ still have an credence in the idea that
> somehow there's magic in DC to add folks to the roles of the insured
> and yet not add tremendous costs? Did anybody hear anything that had
> any semblance of explaining how these massive cost-savings that were
> promised are actually to be achieved? Or was I simply asleep already
> when that happened????

What seems to be missing from many of these debates is the huge hidden costs
we're all paying already because one in six Americans has no health
insurance. Depending on which state you live in, eight to ten percent of
what you pay for health insurance is shifted by the health care industry to
cover their costs in treating uninsured patients, and that's aside from the
umpteen billion tax dollars spent on such treatment. People without
insurance also don't get preventative care and thus end up with serious (and
expensive) illnesses which are dealt with in the Emergency Room. Some
hospitals have been so swamped with uninsured ER patients that they've
closed their ERs, not an attractive situation if you've just been in a
traffic accident. There's also the high overhead of the U.S. health
insurance industry, double the cost of health insurance administration in
Canada for example. Does anybody think we don't pay for that with our
monthly premiums? There is the loss of jobs (and tax revenues) as companies
move overseas where they don't have to pay for employee health plans, and so
on. So when I hear people expressing fear over what health care reform will
cost, I can't help but wonder how they're missing the enormous cost we're
already paying for the inefficient patchwork of private and public health
care we have now. Does anyone seriously believe that if the money comes
from a different pocket in the same pair of pants that it somehow doesn't
count?

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Given the lively debate the previous thread engendered, after the last
> couple of days can _anyone_ still have an credence in the idea that
> somehow there's magic in DC to add folks to the roles of the insured and
> yet not add tremendous costs? Did anybody hear anything that had any
> semblance of explaining how these massive cost-savings that were promised
> are actually to be achieved? Or was I simply asleep already when that
> happened????
>

His Holiness The President reckons the government can Save 300 Billion or so
by reducing the amounts paid to private health care practitioners for
services. Nothing was said about what will happen if said practitioners
Refuse to provide said services for a smaller payment. Neither was anything
said about what might happen should the rest of us decide to pay for
vacations from the savings we accrue by paying Less for Government Services.

J. Clarke wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Given the lively debate the previous thread engendered, after the
>>>> last couple of days can _anyone_ still have an credence in the idea
>>>> that somehow there's magic in DC to add folks to the roles of the
>>>> insured and yet not add tremendous costs? Did anybody hear
>>>> anything that had any semblance of explaining how these massive
>>>> cost-savings that were promised are actually to be achieved? Or
>>>> was I simply asleep already when that happened????
>>>
>>> What seems to be missing from many of these debates is the huge
>>> hidden costs we're all paying already because one in six Americans
>>> has no health insurance. Depending on which state you live in,
>>> eight to ten percent of what you pay for health insurance is shifted
>>> by the health care industry to cover their costs in treating
>>> uninsured patients, and that's aside from the umpteen billion tax
>>> dollars spent on such treatment. ...
>>
>> But it will be even more hidden in anything I've seen
>> proposed--payment for health care programs will be essentially
>> completely divorced from the care itself via a multitude of taxes on
>> everything from higher "sin" taxes to the proposals for the highest
>> tax ever conceived--C via "cap and trade".
>>
>> It's not that there aren't some reforms needed; it's that the only
>> things I've seen proposed aren't going to do anything that I can see
>> that will have any effect on the underlying causes; simply transfer
>> the cost to the public roles.
>
> This century is likely to go down in history as "the crazy years" as
> "government by the people" votes higher and higher and higher taxes
> until everybody is getting so much free government services that
> after giving the government everything they earn they still come out
> owing at the end of the year.
>
> Then some man on a white horse will shoot all the politicians and
> bureaucrats and declare himself king.

The hero may turn out to be Arnold Swartzenneger!

He took office and immediately divined that the whole system was unfixable.
The only hope was to quit patching the ballon and simply let it go all
Hindenberg. Only then could the state of California could start over with a
whole new method.

Arnold may eventually be hailed, not as a governor that presided over the
collapse of the state, but as the one who ushered in a future brighter than
anyone could imagine!

Or not. Depending on the breaks.

What neither of you realize is the health program in this country is fixed,
all the government is doing is a bit of tweaking.

The reason I say that is a simple observance of the facts. Anything a
liberal wishes to is, by that very effort of wishing, brought to fruition.
The only thing that stops the liberal from making this whole world a
paradise is those nasty conservatives who insist on taking off the rose
colored glasses - or even worse, when they see the king butt naked,
saying "Hey, the king doesn't have any clothes on." So you see, if the
conservatives would "see the light" all the problems of the society would
be solved by the desires of the liberals, merely because they desired it.

Deb





dpb wrote:

> Given the lively debate the previous thread engendered, after the last
> couple of days can _anyone_ still have an credence in the idea that
> somehow there's magic in DC to add folks to the roles of the insured and
> yet not add tremendous costs? Did anybody hear anything that had any
> semblance of explaining how these massive cost-savings that were
> promised are actually to be achieved? Or was I simply asleep already
> when that happened????
>
> From NY Times today...
>
> "... an initial financial analysis by the Congressional Budget Office
> showing that a main proposal for overhauling health care would cost $1
> trillion over 10 years but would leave 36 million Americans uninsured.
>
> The preliminary analysis by the budget office...showed Democrats falling
> far short of their goal, which is to provide insurance to all Americans
> and offset the expense of doing so with new taxes or cost savings. ...
>
> In trying to answer ... basic questions about the cost analysis, the
> Democrats exposed deep internal disagreements over how to pay for
> revamping the health care system, with some pushing to tax
> employer-provided health benefits above a pre-set limit, and others
> preferring tax increases outside the health arena.
>
> ...
>
> The cost-analysis also revealed some other potential consequences of the
> Health committee bill, including the possibility that some children
> could end up shifted off of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance
> Program, which provide comprehensive health coverage, and instead be
> required to obtain new insurance with less extensive benefits. ...
>
> But expanding coverage without adding to the deficit is looking like a
> steeper challenge than even many of the leading proponents of a health
> care overhaul had imagined."
>
> As my last comment previously noted, "Be careful what you wish for; you
> might just get it."
>
> --