[quote]Mhatch wrote:
If the government would stop raiding the coffers of Social Security and Medicare, we probably would not be having this issue. It all boils down to government being to big to support and to many people getting entitlements they don’t deserve.[/quote]
Well, medicare should be insolvent in a few years and social security not terrible far behind that. So they won’t be able to “borrow” from it anymore.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
If the government would stop raiding the coffers of Social Security and Medicare, we probably would not be having this issue. It all boils down to government being to big to support and to many people getting entitlements they don’t deserve.
Well, medicare should be insolvent in a few years and social security not terrible far behind that. So they won’t be able to “borrow” from it anymore.
[/quote]
Yeah, I saw the same topic on Yahoo before I started browsing the forums. The thing is, the idea is to raise taxes so that Social Security can keep dragging on like the decrepit program it is. Sigh.
The cherry on top is that SS and Medicare are already broke. The “trust funds”? They’re filled with treasury debt!
There is no trust fund, for either program!
What those projections really mean is that by 2016 and 2037, Medicare and SS, respectively, will be hemorrhaging money faster than we can fill them with newly issued debt!
We can’t really afford those programs now. But in ten-to-twenty years, we won’t even be able to sell debt fast enough to pretend to pay for them.
And that’s scary.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
The cherry on top is that SS and Medicare are already broke. The “trust funds”? They’re filled with treasury debt!
There is no trust fund, for either program!
What those projections really mean is that by 2016 and 2037, Medicare and SS, respectively, will be hemorrhaging money faster than we can fill them with newly issued debt!
We can’t really afford those programs now. But in ten-to-twenty years, we won’t even be able to sell debt fast enough to pretend to pay for them.
And that’s scary.[/quote]
You honestly, seriously, crossmyheart think that it will take the Chinese another 7 to 30 years to figure out that they will not get their money back?
Cereally?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
The cherry on top is that SS and Medicare are already broke. The “trust funds”? They’re filled with treasury debt!
There is no trust fund, for either program!
What those projections really mean is that by 2016 and 2037, Medicare and SS, respectively, will be hemorrhaging money faster than we can fill them with newly issued debt!
We can’t really afford those programs now. But in ten-to-twenty years, we won’t even be able to sell debt fast enough to pretend to pay for them.
And that’s scary.[/quote]
So? Free healthcare, man! Free!
Blah, blah, blah. The system isn’t working. Obama’s got all the players at the table and all you all do is bitch like little girls. This country has to move toward preventative healthcare. period. You got a good way to do that, let’s hear it.
Or better yet, let’s make over-the-top BS strawmen (or conspiracy theories) and see where that gets us.
[quote]orion wrote:
Cereally?[/quote]
That reminds me, did you hear that Captain Crunch and Count Chocula were both found dead?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Blah, blah, blah. The system isn’t working. Obama’s got all the players at the table and all you all do is bitch like little girls. This country has to move toward preventative healthcare. period. You got a good way to do that, let’s hear it.
Or better yet, let’s make over-the-top BS strawmen (or conspiracy theories) and see where that gets us.
[/quote]
Why does the country have to move toward preventative health care? Shouldn’t individuals have the freedom and responsiblity to do that? Live a healthy style, or pay for your own consequences (or beg for charity).
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
The cherry on top is that SS and Medicare are already broke. The “trust funds”? They’re filled with treasury debt!
There is no trust fund, for either program!
What those projections really mean is that by 2016 and 2037, Medicare and SS, respectively, will be hemorrhaging money faster than we can fill them with newly issued debt!
We can’t really afford those programs now. But in ten-to-twenty years, we won’t even be able to sell debt fast enough to pretend to pay for them.
And that’s scary.[/quote]
And they are broke because or beloved government can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar…
[quote]orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
The cherry on top is that SS and Medicare are already broke. The “trust funds”? They’re filled with treasury debt!
There is no trust fund, for either program!
What those projections really mean is that by 2016 and 2037, Medicare and SS, respectively, will be hemorrhaging money faster than we can fill them with newly issued debt!
We can’t really afford those programs now. But in ten-to-twenty years, we won’t even be able to sell debt fast enough to pretend to pay for them.
And that’s scary.
You honestly, seriously, crossmyheart think that it will take the Chinese another 7 to 30 years to figure out that they will not get their money back?
Cereally?[/quote]
I think the Chinese never had intention of getting their money back.
If we are to succeed in fixing health care in America, we have to focus on preventive care. That means changing behavior. Unfortunately, we have had the dumbing-down and pussification of America so most Americans lack both the cognitive capacity and/or the discipline to become informed and make tough changes in their behavior. Unfortunately, America also lacks the capacity to tell lazy dumbasses “tough shit” when their kidneys fail due to diabetes or whatever ails them and they can’t pay for it. So, either the governments or the medical industry ends up paying the bill, which really means the rest of us pay.
However, IMO, most people will change their behavior for money.
So we should make it more expensive to choose unhealthy things in their life. I don’t agree with cap and trade because I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, but I do believe in taxing the crap out of unhealthy food and using the revenues to pay for health care. Examples include moderately taxing food, drinks and ingredients with glycemic index of 50-65 and highly taxing foods with GI of 66 and higher. I’m not that worried about sodium, but I see so much diabetes in the urgent care, primary care an ERs I work in, it is clear to me that’s where this should start.
Big brother/gubamint sucks, but I challenge any one else to come up with a better idea.
Here is another idea (sounds good, would never be accepted). Guns are “dangerous”. “People can be hurt and killed by guns.” So we make people go through background checks to get them legally and register them in some locales.
Unhealthy food also hurts and kills people. We should make everyone past certain requirements to get high GI carbs, etc. If you’re fat, you don’t get a dessert menu at restaraunts. You have to show an acceptable lipid panel to get eggs or red meat at the grocery store. You get your blood pressure checked before you walk out with a ham (due to sodium). Maybe you could register your ham with the Beareau of Anti Total-health Food Enforcement (BATFE). It may be easier to do this than I thought. There is no Right to Keep and Bear Donuts in the Constitution.
But what would we do when we start noticing a lot of Canadians along the Minnesota and North Dakota border getting fat? Cartel wars between the Dunkin Donuts cartel and the Krispie Kreme mafias?
Some Canadian would say “Don’t ya know, 90% of dem fatty food come from da United States, eh?”
I’d bet in reality they would really come from China or South America, but we would only be able to trace the pints of Ben and Jerry’s and Wonka Bars back here.
I hadn’t been to the doctor for 12 years up until last year because I couldn’t afford it. Turns out I am doing great. Imagine how many people will go to the doctor who don’t really need it if the health care is free?
The best healthcare idea I’ve seen is actually removing insurance. Because of insurance policies covering operations, the effects of supply and demand cannot operate the way they normally would, and so the selling price of most doctor proceedures is far above the amount that most people are willing to pay. If insurance companies were removed from the equation, then the price would be forced downwards because hardly anyone would be able to afford proceedures at the current price. Doctors would loose too much business if they didn’t lower their prices.
Of course, this is a pretty cutthroat idea.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I hadn’t been to the doctor for 12 years up until last year because I couldn’t afford it. Turns out I am doing great. Imagine how many people will go to the doctor who don’t really need it if the health care is free?
The best healthcare idea I’ve seen is actually removing insurance. Because of insurance policies covering operations, the effects of supply and demand cannot operate the way they normally would, and so the selling price of most doctor proceedures is far above the amount that most people are willing to pay. If insurance companies were removed from the equation, then the price would be forced downwards because hardly anyone would be able to afford proceedures at the current price. Doctors would loose too much business if they didn’t lower their prices.
Of course, this is a pretty cutthroat idea. [/quote]
people want to live to ripe old ages. they want to retire at 55-60 and live to 110. This fantasy is quite costly.
preventive care is absurdly cost effective, in both long and short term. if the govn’t is going to take over anything, it should be this aspect. not that i want them to.
but in the end preventive care is not a huge money generating machine for drug companies or insurance companies. the profits of telling everyone every complaint is a serious ailment makes a lot of money. even better if you can pull them into a an impossible net of medical coverage.
the irony of the AMA is that they helped kill the idea of nationalized care in 80s. They sided with drug companies and the newly powerful HMOs. Now they realized theyve helped create this monster and are running back to nationalized care.
the nixon tapes with Kaiser are almost unbelievable. the goal of hmo’s and beyond was never to help americans or reduce costs. maybe for free market champions it was. but the people actualy behind it, they new all along it was just gouging.
[quote]borrek wrote:
It isn’t about changing things just for the sake of changing them. We all know that something is broken. I’m sure just about everyone here has had an insurance company refuse to pay for something a doctor ordered because they don’t agree with the treatment. This has happened to me many times with blue cross blue shield.
I’m pretty well insured, yet still have paid out over $5k this year for relatively minor medical situations. I can’t imagine what would happen if god-forbid someone in my family get something serious. People with insurance go bankrupt everyday. This isn’t right when they are paying into a closed system in good faith.
I don’t think that handing health care to the government is the answer, but the medical insurance game needs drastically overhauled, and only the government can do that. Medical insurance is not as simple as car insurance, and making med insurance part of the free market will not magically fix things. I’m sure they’ll take a page from cell phone and cable companies and get to charge 20 separate fees a month that adds up to something outrageous. Will they have the cheaper "We’ll cover " package at a lower rate? I pity the person with the “minimum coverage” health insurance. It isn’t right to let them die or be in pain.
[/quote]
First, I see very little wrong with the cell phone companies. Cell phones are generally cheaper than land lines and you have many, many choices. You can get a cell phone plan for less than $10 a month. What’s wrong with that?
Next, I would be happy to get the “anything but cancer” plan, because if the plans were set up that way, if and when I got cancer, I would change plans to the “first-class cancer” plan. Sure it would cost a hell of a lot more, but I would have saved by having the minimum coverage for years.
Medical insurance SHOULD be more like car insurance.
[quote]pwilliams wrote:
If we are to succeed in fixing health care in America, we have to focus on preventive care.
[/quote]
This is 100% wrong. Quit stopping at the obvious. Use you unique ability to reason and dig a little deeper. If you think health care is too expensive, shouldn’t you atleast figure out why? Wouldn’t you fix that instead of forcing unconsitutional mandates down people’s throats. Gov’t created this mess. More Gov’t isn’t going to fix it.
Who has the right to change my fucking behavior. If I am not hurting anyone else but myself, that’s my business. gov’t control of my body and health is about as far left as you can get my friend.
Dude, you are completely missing the point, which kind of proves your point.
The problem is not bad personal decisions. The problem is forcing others to pick up the bill.
This is worste fucking thing anyone has ever posted on this board. Go read the fucking constitution for christ’s sake.
Where to start… First understand the problem. Then identify the cause. Then attack the cause.
The problem is not unhealthy americans. The problem is trying to figure out how to charge them more. That answer has existed since the beginning of medicine. You really need to think about this a bit more.
[quote]
Here is another idea (sounds good, would never be accepted). Guns are “dangerous”. “People can be hurt and killed by guns.” So we make people go through background checks to get them legally and register them in some locales.
Unhealthy food also hurts and kills people. We should make everyone past certain requirements to get high GI carbs, etc. If you’re fat, you don’t get a dessert menu at restaraunts. You have to show an acceptable lipid panel to get eggs or red meat at the grocery store. You get your blood pressure checked before you walk out with a ham (due to sodium). Maybe you could register your ham with the Beareau of Anti Total-health Food Enforcement (BATFE). It may be easier to do this than I thought. There is no Right to Keep and Bear Donuts in the Constitution. [/quote]
Holy shit. You really need to quit posting an just read for awhile.
Preventive care? So you are suggesting the government tell us what we can and cannot do for our health and you trust them to actually know?
Notice how preventative care is often associated with taxing the hell out of cigarettes (even more so), booze, and fast food? In other words, taxing the poor.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I think the Chinese never had intention of getting their money back.[/quote]
That sounds like a winning investment strategy!
Utilized domestic resources to produce consumable goods
delay domestic consumption by keeping currency undervalued so that only foreigners can afford produced goods
accept foreign government fiat as payment in lieu of real goods and services
profit…
er, um…?
When do the Chinese realize they are nothing more than our slaves and revolt against the system?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Notice how preventative care is often associated with taxing the hell out of cigarettes (even more so), booze, and fast food? In other words, taxing the poor.[/quote]
Dear Leader has determined that regressive taxation is okay now; his judgement on such matters is final. /thread