Obamacare is passed.....let the outrage

[rwh11385]

And 3% of taxpayers in this country control 45% of the wealth. What's your point? Do you think that an extra few hundred in taxes for people that make $150,000 + per year is going to break the bank? ... Public health care is NOT redistribution of wealth, it is a way of making sure that all Americans have the same access to good medical care.

Quoted for the LOLz. Just to show you are a dumbass

[pbr87]

Taxes on average citizen won't matter... health insurance companies will have to adjust their prices to deal with this new bill and Obama will make health care more expensive for those who can now afford it. Democrats and socialists get more power when there are more people who need their help and have much less control when people are strong on their own.

So basically, what you're saying is that there are more people who need Obama's help than there are that don't. Presumably, those people are the ones who formed the majority that elected him. Now he has an agenda which he is designing to serve their needs as best he can.

That's democracy. Not socialism.

I'm fine with actuaries getting paid. My mom is one. I'm okay with lawyers getting paid, my sister is going to be one. YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE LESS OVERHEAD?!?!?

I am not judging the livelihoods of other people. I have friends who work for insurance companies. I myself plan on going to law school in two years. I'm saying that these people who fear for their jobs are spreading a great deal of propaganda; I just don't buy into all of it.

You're a fool! Health care companies need people to work for them, and I don't think that 30% is accurate, but oh well. There are lots of jobs to ensure HC insurance is smooth as it can, and GOV will do it less smooth and more expensive to manage...

I might be a fool. I've certainly been called worse before. That aside, my mother is involved in healthcare. She has accurate, up to date information. Trust me, the "30% estimate" is modest.

- ConsultantNinja

US Health Care Costs
Georgetown professor Ken Homa has a good analysis of the health care industry cost structure, and takes issue with Obama's recent targeting of HMO profits. Homa's analysis is correct but could be easier to understand with a simple graphic, which I've done here.



Conclusion: Killing HMOs isn't going to save our health care system.- ConsultantNinja

I'd like to read more on this. Do you have a link to his research?

[z31maniac]

I might be a fool. I've certainly been called worse before. That aside, my mother is involved in healthcare. She has accurate, up to date information. Trust me, the "30% estimate" is modest.

I know so-and-so who tells me for sure they know what the deal is.

That doesn't fly as objective, verifiable information around here.

[pbr87]

Quoted for the LOLz. Just to show you are a dumbass

No, you are.

For confusing public health care with redistribution of wealth.

Taxing wealthy people, and sending checks to poor people = welfare = redistribution of wealth.

Taxing wealth people to pay for healthcare for poor people = public healthcare =/= redistribution of wealth.

It's only actual wealth redistribution if one person is getting poorer while another gets richer. But paying for healthcare doesn't exactly put more money into someone's bank account, does it? (< rhetorical question)
See the difference?

[pbr87]

I know so-and-so who tells me for sure they know what the deal is.

That doesn't fly as objective, verifiable information around here.

Fair enough. Give me a few days, I'll ask to borrow some of the journal resources she subscribes to. I'll find information from there, then quote it on here. Will that be objective and verifiable enough?

[rwh11385]

So basically, what you're saying is that there are more people who need Obama's help than there are that don't. Presumably, those people are the ones who formed the majority that elected him. Now he has an agenda which he is designing to serve their needs as best he can.

That's democracy. Not socialism.

Did the illegals vote for Obama? The costs will go up because of them, and paying for their insurance is fucking stupid.

I'd like to read more on this. Do you have a link to his research?

http://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/timely-reprise-those-health-insurance-companies/

[rwh11385]

No, you are.

For confusing public health care with redistribution of wealth.

Taxing wealthy people, and sending checks to poor people = welfare = redistribution of wealth.

Taxing wealth people to pay for healthcare for poor people = public healthcare =/= redistribution of wealth.

It's only actual wealth redistribution if one person is getting poorer while another gets richer. But paying for healthcare doesn't exactly put more money into someone's bank account, does it? (< rhetorical question)
See the difference?

Someone qualifies for public healthcare who is currently covered by private insurance. Said person drops their coverage, saves money, and still has health care. Taxes on the rich are used to increase the wealth of the poor = redistribution.

[dinanm3atl]

Someone qualifies for public healthcare who is currently covered by private insurance. Said person drops their coverage, saves money, and still has health care. Taxes on the rich are used to increase the wealth of the poor = redistribution.

That is my whole thing...

What is to stop the currently insured from dropping what they pay for to get into the 'free' healthcare. That would seem to be a pretty good deal for a lot of people.

Also just another item that allows a child to be on the plan for longer. That is going to cost more money. Insurance company gets a call and policy holder wants to 'add' a new child. Ok? Well now they can be on the plan longer because new bill says they have to allow it. So you think if they have to insure for more years they are going to give the same price?

This is just the biggest cluster.

[pbr87]

Someone qualifies for public healthcare who is currently covered by private insurance. Said person drops their coverage, saves money, and still has health care. Taxes on the rich are used to increase the wealth of the poor = redistribution.

Sure, there will be a few cases like this; where opportunistic freeloaders take advantage of a new system. But I haven't seen any evidence that such cases describe the majority of Americans.

[rwh11385]

Sure, there will be a few cases like this; where opportunistic freeloaders take advantage of a new system. But I haven't seen any evidence that such cases describe the majority of Americans.

Oh yeah, now you back pedal. That is how entitlement programs work. They create huge free rider problems. People use food stamps to buy cigs, welfare fraud, etc.

The majority of Americans have health insurance. Increasing their costs and lessening their care for a bunch of illegals isn't intelligent, and neither are you.

[Aptyp]

Sure, there will be a few cases like this; where opportunistic freeloaders take advantage of a new system. But I haven't seen any evidence that such cases describe the majority of Americans.

So basically, what you're saying is that there are more people who need Obama's help than there are that don't. Presumably, those people are the ones who formed the majority that elected him. Now he has an agenda which he is designing to serve their needs as best he can.

That's democracy. Not socialism.

there's your evidence

[z31maniac]

Fair enough. Give me a few days, I'll ask to borrow some of the journal resources she subscribes to. I'll find information from there, then quote it on here. Will that be objective and verifiable enough?

I'll also want to know who provides funding for said journal, since you so decided to bring up the case of funding for studies and skewing results (which I totally agree with BTW).

But like Heeter said, it it redistribution of wealth. Don't argue semantics. You're taxing people who already pay the biggest burden of all, and giving their money to someone else to pay for something (doesn't matter what it's paying for, it's the general prinicple). THAT is redistribution of wealth.


We need to get away from employer provided insurance, that's a big reason for the increase in costs in my opinion. After the WWII enacted wage control, offering health care as a benefit was a way to lure better employees to your company. That began the shielding of the American people from the cost of health care. The cost no longer directly affected their bank account so people were no longer cognisant of the VALUE provided by health care providers.

[pbr87]

Did the illegals vote for Obama? The costs will go up because of them, and paying for their insurance is fucking stupid.

Lou Dobbs called. He wants his 2007 broadcast back.

http://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/07...nce-companies/

Thank you. :up:

Oh yeah, now you back pedal. That is how entitlement programs work. They create huge free rider problems. People use food stamps to buy cigs, welfare fraud, etc.

The majority of Americans have health insurance. Increasing their costs and lessening their care for a bunch of illegals isn't intelligent, and neither are you.

Back pedal? I'm semi-agreeing with you; there will be a few cases of fraud. The difference between us is that you think that the majority of cases are going to be "fraud-like". I just don't think there's any evidence to support that position as of yet. Also, attempting to make personal jabs at me isn't going to help the cause of your argument any.

there's your evidence

No.
35-45 million currently uninsured.
They will qualify for the program.
Of the 270 million people who are currently insured, maybe 170 million of them will qualify for the program, and of those, maybe 100 million will drop their insurance for the public option. Of those people, probably 60 million are heavily in debt as a result of the recession. That's my estimate; out of 2000 million or so people who will qualify for the program, maybe 30 or 40 million cases will be undeserving. It might be a little more, it might be less. I highly doubt the typical "worst-case-scenario" that rwh2098320987 envisions, in which the majority of Americans defraud the elite class.
*Theses are all guesses pulled completely out of my ass, so flame suit on*

[rwh11385]

No.
35-45 million currently uninsured.
They will qualify for the program.
Of the 270 million people who are currently insured, maybe 170 million of them will qualify for the program, and of those, maybe 100 million will drop their insurance for the public option. Of those people, probably 60 million are heavily in debt as a result of the recession. That's my estimate; out of 2000 million or so people who will qualify for the program, maybe 30 or 40 million cases will be undeserving. It might be a little more, it might be less. I highly doubt the typical "worst-case-scenario" that rwh2098320987 envisions, in which the majority of Americans defraud the elite class.
*Theses are all guesses pulled completely out of my ass, so flame suit on*

So the top 3% will be paying for 145 million people's health insurance and it is NOT redistribution of wealth?

And those 170 million who currently have and pay for their health insurance and will continue to pay will get to experience increase costs because of this?

[pbr87]

So the top 3% will be paying for 145 million people's health insurance and it is NOT redistribution of wealth?

And those 170 million who currently have and pay for their health insurance and will continue to pay will get to experience increase costs because of this?

First off, this bill will eventually be tweaked and adjusted to minimize cases of fraud. Now, a more in depth response.
I think it's more like the top 1%.
In theory, it works like this: 100,000 people will go without luxury yachts so that 45 million people (many of them children) can get medical treatment for things like cancer. As far as the "increased costs" argument, I really need to do some more research before I contest or retort to this. Intuitively, however, it seems doubtful that people will suffer "increased costs". Right now, 30% of the costs go into the pockets of health insurance companies. Another chunk of the costs (not sure on percentage) comes from insured people paying for the ER visits of the uninsured. Presumably, Obamacare would eliminate most of these wasted costs. So where the costs increase across the board is still kind of a mystery to me. I read the article that z31 posted, and while I agreed with a couple of things in it, I did not see any concrete evidence that costs will increase for a majority of people. What I saw were what appeared to be a couple of startling anomalies, discovered by a company that takes a vested interest in spreading anti-public-option propaganda.