# Affordable Care Act saving taxpayer money at record pace



## Bfgrn (Feb 14, 2012)

Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.

*Feds recover $4.1B in health care fraud in 2011*

Federal authorities say they recovered $4.1 billion in health care fraud judgments last year, a record high which officials on Monday credited to new tools for cracking down on deceitful Medicare claims.

The recovered funds are up roughly 50 percent from 2009. Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were expected to make the announcement at a news conference Tuesday.

more


Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke


----------



## editec (Feb 14, 2012)

This is good news.

Medicare fraud is, I am informed, one the cash cows of the American based Russian mafia.


----------



## theHawk (Feb 14, 2012)

All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud.  Hence why we shouldn't have them.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Feb 14, 2012)

Yeah, but it has something to do with the government, so I think its a failure. Get Government out of my Medicare!!! Stop entitlements!! Save Social Security!! Eliminate the deficit!! Increase military spending!!

<_<

>_>

<_>


----------



## chanel (Feb 25, 2012)

> Medical costs for enrollees in the health-care laws high-risk insurance pools are *expected to more than double initial predictions,* the Obama administration said Thursday in a report on the new program.
> 
> The health-care law set aside $5 billion for a Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, meant to provide health insurance to those who had been declined coverage by private carriers. Since its launch last summer, nearly 50,000 Americans have enrolled in the program.
> 
> ...



Per person cost of federal high-risk medical plan doubles - The Washington Post


----------



## daveman (Feb 25, 2012)

ObamaCare Causes Health Insurance Premiums to Rise
Health insurance costs continue to rise as President Obamas healthcare overhaul begins to affect Americans insurance premiums, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET). Leaders in health policy analysis and communication, Kaiser and HRET found that annual family insurance premiums have spiked this year at a rate three times higher than in 2010, significantly outpacing wage increases and general inflation.

--

According to Kaisers and HRETs analysis of employer-based health plans, ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50 percent of the premium hike. Altman initially denied that the healthcare reform law contributed to the increase, but later conceded that the law probably accounted for one to two percentage points of the nine-percent increase this year. That increase "reflects the costs of providing prevention benefits without cost-sharing," Altman said. "It reflects the costs of covering young adults up to 26 years of age under their parents policies. Those are also very popular benefits, according to our tracking polls."​


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 25, 2012)

chanel said:


> Medical costs for enrollees in the health-care laws high-risk insurance pools are *expected to more than double initial predictions,* the Obama administration said Thursday in a report on the new program.



_Per enrollee_ spending is higher than anticipated; total spending on the program is still well below what was expected at the outset. A couple years ago the CMS actuary predicted the $5 billion allocated to the PCIPs would be exhausted this year; as it is, they've only committed something like 10-15% of the funding so far.



daveman said:


> ObamaCare Causes Health Insurance Premiums to Rise



For the math-challenged: 1 percent out of a 9 percent increase is not "50 percent of the premium hike."


----------



## daveman (Feb 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Medical costs for enrollees in the health-care laws high-risk insurance pools are *expected to more than double initial predictions,* the Obama administration said Thursday in a report on the new program.
> ...


For the reading-challenged:
According to Kaisers and HRETs analysis of employer-based health plans, ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50 percent of the premium hike. Altman initially denied that the healthcare reform law contributed to the increase, but later conceded that the law probably accounted for one to two percentage points of the nine-percent increase this year. That increase "reflects the costs of providing prevention benefits without cost-sharing," Altman said. "It reflects the costs of covering young adults up to 26 years of age under their parents policies. Those are also very popular benefits, according to our tracking polls."​Kaiser and HRET say ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50% of the premium hike.

Altman said "the law probably accounted for one to two percentage points of the nine-percent increase this year", after denying it had any effect at all.  That's his opinion.  He's not quoting the study.

ObamaCare is costing Americans more money.  And we're supposed to be grateful for that?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> 
> *Feds recover $4.1B in health care fraud in 2011*
> 
> ...



Another success story for Obamacare

It keeps getting better and better


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 25, 2012)

theHawk said:


> All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud.  Hence why we shouldn't have them.



By that same ilogic we should not allow Catholics because some are pedophiles and misuse their religion?


----------



## Intense (Feb 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> ...



  

No Really.....

   

Where did the Fraud come from in the first place?

Who enabled it?

Who let it go on for so long?


----------



## PredFan (Feb 25, 2012)

Cool! So my taxes are going down? Great!

What?

Oh yeah..what was I thinking.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 25, 2012)

daveman said:


> Kaiser and HRET say ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50% of the premium hike.



No, they don't say that because this is language conjured by rightwing media sources to be as misleading as humanly possible.

The consensus--arrived at by everyone from major HR and benefits consulting firms to the Kaiser Family Foundation to CCIIO's own estimates of the impact of its regulations--is that the ACA increased premiums by 1-2 percent following the changes that kicked in for plans renewed after September 2010. That's the impact of everything implemented so far: the extension of dependent coverage, the end of rescissions, the end of cost-sharing for evidence-based preventive care, the end of lifetime limits and the gradual phase out of annual limits, and the end of pre-existing condition exclusions for children.

What certain rightwing news outlets have done is decide that premiums _should_ have increased by 5 percent overall, based on a small selection of years in which the nation wasn't emerging from a recession-induced plunge in service utilization. So they've decided that 4 of the 9 percent total increase KFF found in its survey is some "excess." And thus if we take the high-range estimates of a 2 percent impact of the ACA in premiums, then 2 of the 4 percent (half!) that they've arbitrarily decided is an excess is attributable to the ACA. That's where your magic fifty percent comes from. 

The better rightwing rags would at least explain the poor reasoning of their flawed methodology in the text of the article, while putting a carefully worded but misleading title on the piece (that was the route CNS took when they tried this).

Your article, however, seems to have not understood the game and instead of careful linguistic gymnastics that hint at the fact they're talking _only_ about the slice of the premium increase they deem to be in excess of historical norms, it slips into language that's simply false on its face: "_Kaiser and HRET say ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50% of the premium hike._"

Find better bullshit next time.


----------



## Star (Feb 25, 2012)

daveman said:


> ObamaCare Causes Health Insurance Premiums to Rise
> Health insurance costs continue to rise as President Obamas healthcare overhaul begins to affect Americans insurance premiums, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET). Leaders in health policy analysis and communication, Kaiser and HRET found that annual family insurance premiums have spiked this year at a rate three times higher than in 2010, significantly outpacing wage increases and general inflation.
> 
> --
> ...


 
daveman - Even the rightwing site you copied-snipped-pasted from claims health insurance premiums had been "steadily rising at a rate of 5% per year" pre-Obama-Care's. But the rightwing site can only accuse, not definitively claim, that any additional increase "could be" because 2.3 million young adults are getting health insurance coverage-----which even the rightwing site concedes is "very popular benefits, according to *our* tracking polls."


My question is; are you and/or the rightwing site you copied-snipped-pasted from suggesting cutting out a part of Obama-Care's that is "very popular benefits, according to *our* tracking polls" -- *OUR* tracking polls?


Below is part of the part you snipped from the rightwing site:




Kaiser and HRET reported in their analysis that health insurance premiums have been steadily rising at a rate of five percent each year, but this year jumped to eight percent for single coverage and nine percent for family coverage.
Many analystssuggest that the section in the law that allows individuals up to age 26 to add themselves to their parents health plans, a key provision of ObamaCare, could be a prime suspect for rising insurance premiums: 
In particular, the survey estimates that employers added 2.3 million young adults to their parents family health insurance policies as a result of the health reform provision that allows young adults up to age 26 without employer coverage on their own to be covered as dependents on their parents plan. Young adults historically are more likely to be uninsured than any other age group. ~ 

http://ObamaCare Causes Health Insurance Premiums to Rise


----------



## Star (Feb 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Medical costs for enrollees in the health-care laws high-risk insurance pools are *expected to more than double initial predictions,* the Obama administration said Thursday in a report on the new program.
> ...


 


Thanks Greenbeard for exposing that Luntz-like language.

frank-luntz-talking-points
Frank Luntz 


Most people are unfamiliar with Frank Luntz, but if I threw out the terms "death tax" or "government takeover of your health care" those are Frank Luntz talking points. Luntz is a pollster and consultant for Fox News, but he is more commonly known as the Republican Party word smither. 

At the recent Republican Governors' Association meeting in Florida, *Frank Luntz prepped the governors *on what words and expressions to use to make the Republican positions appear more favorable.

Instead of capitalism use "economic freedom" or "free market."

Instead of saying government taxes the rich, say "government takes from the rich."

Refer to the middle class as "hardworking taxpayers."

It's not jobs...it's "careers."

Government spending becomes "government waste."

Republicans don't compromise...they "cooperate."

And when hearing out a OWS protester, the three magic words are, "I get it."

You now get the idea. Republicans are masters at coining terms to either convey a more positive or negative meaning, whatever the case may be. So when it appears that all Fox News pundits as well as Republican politicians all of a sudden seem to adopt some new words or expressions all at the same time, you are right. And it is most likely Frank Luntz doing the coaching.

_"80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think."_ -- Frank Luntz


----------



## Leweman (Feb 25, 2012)

There's an estimated 60 to 90 BILLION dollars a year in medicare fraud?  How the hell is that possible?


----------



## daveman (Feb 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kaiser and HRET say ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50% of the premium hike.
> ...


Yes, they do say that.  I just showed you.

I know you believe that Obama's say-so trumps reality, but that's not the case.


----------



## Zander (Feb 25, 2012)

Bottom line: Obamacare will cost the taxpayers TRILLIONS. But since it was passed in the dead of night, behind closed doors, and without one single Republican vote- it's great !! Go team Go!!


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 25, 2012)

daveman said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



There's more text in my post. I'd recommend you read it.


----------



## Zander (Feb 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


----------



## PredFan (Feb 25, 2012)

So my taxes aren't going down, and medicare or medicaid isn't getting any more solvent, so then all that happened is the government found more money to throw away.

I'm thrilled, but how is it saving me money again?


----------



## Zander (Feb 25, 2012)

PredFan said:


> So my taxes aren't going down, and medicare or medicaid isn't getting any more solvent, so then all that happened is the government found more money to throw away.
> 
> I'm thrilled, but how is it saving me money again?



The answer is "Hope and Change".


----------



## chanel (Feb 25, 2012)

Possible?

That's just what they know about.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 25, 2012)

Star said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



I'm sure Joseph Goebbels would be proud that his party and tactics are still in existence.

And Luntz admits that liberals don't have a propaganda ministry.

From:
The 11 Words for 2011 by Frank Luntz

"These are 11 phrases that will be shaping the public discourse over the coming year. You won't find a similar list from a liberal wordsmith -- there aren't any -- so you might as well use these."


----------



## alan1 (Feb 25, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> 
> *Feds recover $4.1B in health care fraud in 2011*
> 
> ...



Way back before government was involved in healthcare, there was zero government healthcare fraud.
Just saying.


----------



## Star (Feb 25, 2012)

alan1 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> ...


 


That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.


----------



## hortysir (Feb 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> ...



How many billions did it cost us to recover 4.1?


----------



## alan1 (Feb 25, 2012)

Star said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The Flintstones cartoon was first shown in 1960, and----voila----in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, the Flintstones cartoon is just as effective as government funded healthcare according to your logic.


----------



## Full-Auto (Feb 25, 2012)

alan1 said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



I wonder if they realize they made an argument to not stop fraud.


----------



## Star (Feb 26, 2012)

alan1 said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...


 

The above message sounds nutty to me -- maybe/probably, it takes a extremist rightwing mind, but could you please take your best shot at explaining to the rest of us what an early to mid-sixties cartoon has to do with the life expectancy of an average American?


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 26, 2012)

hortysir said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So we quit fighting corruption when it is not cost effective?


----------



## Leweman (Feb 26, 2012)

Star said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




in 1910 the life expectancy was 48.4 without govt funded healthcare it jumped to 69.7 in 1960 so really it seems govt funded healthcare has impeded the increase of life expectancy.


----------



## daveman (Feb 26, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



When you start off with such an obviously false statement, the rest can be discarded.


----------



## daveman (Feb 26, 2012)

Star said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Correlation is not causation.

Some people have trouble with that.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 26, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> 
> *Feds recover $4.1B in health care fraud in 2011*
> 
> ...





editec said:


> This is good news.
> 
> Medicare fraud is, I am informed, one the cash cows of the American based Russian mafia.





rightwinger said:


> Another success story for Obamacare
> 
> It keeps getting better and better



Yes, what a success.  We're spending $794 billion over the next seven years on this new entitlement program in order to recover $4.1 billion in fraud costs.  You're right, this is wonderful news!  Now it's only costing us $790 billion in borrowed money from China!  All to try and quell your insatiable greed and sense of self entitlement.

YIPPPEEEEE!!!!!!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 26, 2012)

alan1 said:


> Way back before government was involved in healthcare, there was zero government healthcare fraud.
> Just saying.



And health care was far more affordable and doctors made house calls.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 26, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> 
> *Feds recover $4.1B in health care fraud in 2011*
> 
> ...



Nobody's arguing this isn't making health care cheaper for the government.

The purpose, after all, is to make it more expensive for the patient. Pay more for less services.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 26, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Yes, what a success.  We're spending $794 billion over the next seven years on this new entitlement program in order to recover $4.1 billion in fraud costs.



No, we're spending $794 billion to get care to 32 million Americans by modernizing Medicaid and the individual health insurance market.



> Now it's only costing us $790 billion in borrowed money from China!



The ACA isn't paid for with borrowed money.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 26, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, what a success.  We're spending $794 billion over the next seven years on this new entitlement program in order to recover $4.1 billion in fraud costs.
> ...



No. 

Paid for with higher taxes.

Seems it does everything but lower the cost of health care coverage. The condom war against the church is just one example.


----------



## Zander (Feb 26, 2012)

Star said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane.  Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.


----------



## Star (Feb 26, 2012)

Zander said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...


 

Huh? Are you trying to imply that all medical advances since the mid-1960's have been privately funded?


Check out this PDF NIH article. 
www.faseb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=aDQlNW4adp0%3d&tabid=431


----------



## Zander (Feb 26, 2012)

Star said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...



No. I am not implying anything.  You however,  seem to be convinced that life expectancy increases over the past 50 years are 100% attributable to government funded healthcare.  There is no factual basis for your conclusion.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 26, 2012)

Star said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...



He didn't say "all', but then you seem to think correlation is causation.
Carry on with your hyperbole.


----------



## Star (Feb 26, 2012)

Zander said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


 



Interesting, I asked the question; "Are you trying to imply that all medical advances since the mid-1960's have been privately funded?" and Zander responds by attempting to make up words that I didn't write -- I'm new here, is Zander in the habit of making stuff up?
Click my link for some pretty good information about medical research. http://http://www.faseb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=aDQlNW4adp0%3d&tabid=431


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> 
> *Feds recover $4.1B in health care fraud in 2011*
> 
> ...



Hey, genius, the feds didn't have to do a damn thing differently in order to recover money from fraud than they did before Obamacare. I partiicularly like this quote from your link.



> They also say it is important to end the antiquated system of paying the  claims then chasing suspicious ones. By the time officials catch on to  bogus billing patterns, crooks typically dump that provider ID and open a  new one, or flee the country. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid  Services has come under fire for lax screening as violent criminals and  mobsters are also getting involved, seeing the fraud as more lucrative  than dealing drugs and having less severe criminal penalties.



In other words, despite the alleged reform, we still pay people before we check suspicious claims. Which do you think is less expensive, delaying payment until a suspicious claim is verified, or paying a suspicious claim and then jumping through all the legal hoops and getting the money back, if we can find it?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 26, 2012)

Zander said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



50 years of medical advancements has been a factor, BUT...American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

In praise of Medicare

By Samuel Metz, M.D.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 26, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, what a success.  We're spending $794 billion over the next seven years on this new entitlement program in order to recover $4.1 billion in fraud costs.
> ...



Horseshit.  It all comes from the same pool and you damn well know it.  We are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend.  I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to.  It's reckless and irresponsible to spend it when you can't afford your current expenditures and you being intellectually dishonest about that doesn't change reality.  Unfortunately, people like you aren't going to figure that out until our mountain of debt collapses our financial system and if we're lucky it will simply be a repeat of the Great Depression and not something worse.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Technically, he's right. The PPACA is not paid for with borrowed money because it is not paid for at all, it floats around on a magic carpet that makes things work just because.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 26, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to.



I never would've guessed!


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 26, 2012)

Zander said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...


Hear, hear!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 26, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Too bad Bush's dick was in your mouth for 8 years, because I never heard a fucking PEEP from you right wing turds during that time frame.


----------



## Star (Feb 26, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


 


www.usgovernmentdebt.us/debt_deficit_brief.php​ 
*A Century of Deficits*
*




*​ 
*Chart 4.04: Federal Deficit 1900-2016 *
Todays federal deficit always seems dangerous and unprecedented. In fact, you need a war to really get a big deficit. The peak deficits came during World War I (16% of GDP in 1919) and World War II (24% in 1945), as the chart shows. The deficits of the Great Depression only came to about five percent of GDP, and the big $1.4 trillion deficit for FY 2009 amounted to 13% of GDP.​ 

Looks to me like most deficits can be traced to WWI, WWII, Reagan's tax policy, and the Bush tax cuts for the rich, combined with two unpaid for Bush wars and---and an unpaid for prescription drug act signed into law during the Bush Administration. 
Get out your calculators and scorecards --- see what I'm saying?


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 26, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...


True, but cons believe it's better to pay CEOs of private insurance companies hundreds of millions a year instead of the low overhead of Medicare.


----------



## Full-Auto (Feb 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Are you Always full of shit or just right now?


----------



## starcraftzzz (Feb 26, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Republicans oppose single payer which would immediately wipe out 300billion in wasteful health care spending without impacting health quality. WHy would they oppose that? Well because then insurrance companies wouldn't be able to get mega rich off of cancer patients


----------



## starcraftzzz (Feb 26, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


The ACA reduces total health care spending.
Second interest rats on T bills are 0 and negative meaning we can currently afford to have a large deficit.
Third if we balanced the budget today it would result in a depression, so it is stupid of you to want to create a depression in order to maybe avoid a depression


----------



## starcraftzzz (Feb 26, 2012)

Zander said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.
> ...


55% of new drugs are developed by government despite government spending only amounting to 30% of new drug research
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF


----------



## Conservative (Feb 26, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


wow, Godwin'd in only 24 posts. Is that a record?


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 26, 2012)

This year seniors are getting a free medical exam and lower prescription co-pays. Thank you, Obama.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Single payer would immediately wipe out $300,000,000,000.00 in wasteful spending? How?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



You are incredibly stupid, aren't you?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 27, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



It looks like you need to find a mirror.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 27, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kaiser and HRET say ObamaCare could be responsible for as much as 50% of the premium hike.
> ...



This also doesn't take into account that premiums were going up at a rapid pace in the first place with nothing really to justify the costs...except for the "possibility" that HMOs were both playing the markets with profit..and listed.

In any case taxpayers were demanding something be done for quite some time. Seeing that taxes were used to promote development of new medical procedures..the cost didn't really seem justified. This is nothing new either, the government has trying to get a handle on this for almost a century. HMOs were Nixon's baby. And "ObamaCare" was the GOP/Conservative answer to HillaryCare. Fast forward to know and we see the GOP never being really serious about addressing this. In fact..their "new" alternative to ObamaCare is tossing patients back to HMOs and getting rid of "state lines", whatever that means.

As this rolls out, people are going to like that cost has been staggered and they can't get tossed for nonsense. That's what really scares the GOP. They don't like stuff that actually works.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 27, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Where do you get these nightmare scenarios from?

The depression wasn't caused by public debt. It was caused by the private sector playing games with other people's money. Sound familiar?


----------



## editec (Feb 27, 2012)

theHawk said:


> All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud. Hence why we shouldn't have them.


 
All civilization is subject to massive fraud.

Ought we abandon the notion of civilization and return to our natural state, too?.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 27, 2012)

editec said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud. Hence why we shouldn't have them.
> ...



Silly as that sounds..this is what the whole argument boils down to. The reason we have the processes in place that we do..is that everything else has been tried and this seems to be the best solution.

The problem with some conservative thought is that they want to go back to processes that failed already. And it makes no sense.


----------



## daveman (Feb 27, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Single payer doesn't work.


----------



## daveman (Feb 27, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 27, 2012)

daveman said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



Countries that have it have lower healthcare costs and better coverage than is available in the US

Why?  Because we waste one third of our healthcare dollar on middlemen, administrative paperwork, political lobbying and overhead


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 27, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud.  Hence why we shouldn't have them.
> ...



And, jail all Baptists because Timothy McVeigh was one.

Other than our president, I would miss any of them but its a good point.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



This was made very clear to me when I had to have emergency medical care while vacationing in France and Brussels. 

I knew I was a fan of AFFORDABLE health care insurance but seeing how Europe does it so much better than we do really made it clear to me. 

I believe that US citizens pay for and deserve that same quality of care and nothing will ever change my mind.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 27, 2012)

After noting that family premiums in Massachusetts rose more slowly than the national average from 2006-10, Ezra Klein had a nice post this morning on the cost-saving potential of the ACA:

Wonkbook: Romneycare is working -- and Obamacare might be, too - The Washington Post



> If that's so, however, we're not seeing it yet. Romneycare's cousin, the Affordable Care Act -- or, as it's more frequently known, Obamacare -- isn't fully in place, and won't be until 2014 at the earliest. But it has passed. And since it has passed, health-care spending has been dropping. Karen Davis, director of the Commonwealth Fund, writes that the most recent spending projections show a "$275 billion (5.6 percent) reduction for 2020, compared with pre-reform estimates. Moreover, that projection represents a cumulative reduction of $1.7 trillion over the 10 years from 2011 to 2020."
> 
> You might argue that that's just the recession, but as Davis writes, "the recession doesnt plausibly explain why projected health spending in 2020 is substantially below estimates made just two years ago." And why the recession having such an effect on long-term spending under Medicare? The latest data shows we're on track to spend $750 billion less than the pre-reform projections suggested. The Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act account for barely half of that. If these trends hold, the Affordable Care Act will cost far less than anticipated.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Why do I need a mirror? Your chart has absolutely nothing to do with anything starc said. Maybe you should look in one and ask it who is the stupidest in the room. I guarantee it won't be the mirror.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



How is calling someone stupid a nightmare scenario? Did I comment on anything else that could possibly be construed as a nightmare or a scenario?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2012)

Sallow said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Massive laws and endless regulations that are supposed to prevent anything people might think of ever are the best solution? Seriously? If that worked we would never have any problems because they thought would have thought of everything after the 1929 crash.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2012)

daveman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Seems about right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



I have asked this question a few times, and no one has answered, perhaps you can explain. If single payer produces better results why do people from countries with single payer systems come here for health care?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> After noting that family premiums in Massachusetts rose more slowly than the national average from 2006-10, Ezra Klein had a nice post this morning on the cost-saving potential of the ACA:
> 
> Wonkbook: Romneycare is working -- and Obamacare might be, too - The Washington Post
> 
> ...



If Romneycare were actually "working" family premiums would be going down, not up.

Just saying.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 27, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Most don't, some choose to for elective procedures that they choose not to wait for

Sometimes you just have to get that boob job


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The people that go to the Mayo clinic because it has the best medical treatment in the world get boob jobs? You really want to try to float that argument?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 27, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So, because we have a Mayo clinic that means all of our other healthcare issues are irrelevant?

STRAWMAN


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I asked why people from countries with single payer systems come here for medical care if those countries always have better health care than we do. you brought up boob jobs. How does that make the Mayo clinic a strawman? Are you so used to debating nincompoops you forgot how to mount a logical argument?


----------



## Conservative (Feb 27, 2012)

daveman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



more like this...


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 28, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Maybe what you are parroting is mostly propaganda?

The Many Myths Of European Health Care - CBS News


----------



## Star (Feb 28, 2012)

[QUOTEI have asked this question a few times, and no one has answered, perhaps you can explain. If single payer produces better results why do people from countries with single payer systems come here for health care?[/QUOTE]



I've heard of the occasional uber-rich person traveling to the US for some sort or other specialized medical care but the medical tourism trade is going the other direction-----but g'head, try to show me how I'm wrong about that. I think if you have any research skills at all, you'll find that there are many times more Americans going out of country for medical care than there are foreigners coming to the US for medical care.




*United States*


A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[80] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[81] The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care,[80] whereas the low costs for hospital stays and major/complex procedures at Western-accredited medical facilities abroad are cited as major motivators for American travelers.[81] Also, it has been noted that the decline in value of the U.S. dollar is offering additional incentive for foreign travel to the U.S., although cost differences between the US and many locations in Asia far outweigh[_clarification needed_] any currency fluctuations.

Several major medical centers and teaching hospitals offer international patient centers that cater to patients from foreign countries who seek medical treatment in the U.S.[82] Many of these organizations offer service coordinators to assist international patients with arrangements for medical care, accommodations, finances and transportation including air ambulance services.

Many locations in the US that offer medical care comparable in price to foreign medical facilities are not Joint Commission Accredited.[_citation needed_] Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So the answer to your question; "If single payer produces better results why do people from countries with single payer systems come here for health care?" is, who knows-----maybe visiting Haight-Ashbury is on their Bucket List, who knows?-----there are as many reasons for coming to the US for medical care as there are people coming to the US for medical care-----a guy I used to work with had his knee replacement done in France, so he could use the money he saved to offset touring Europe before having the procedure done. But he's just one guy, there are upwards of a million other stories out there - every year-----IOW your question makes no sense, but please try to explain why you think it does?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I did not see anything in there about why people from other countries come to the US for treatment. All it talks about is how hard it is to actually rate health care systems worldwide, and how, even though the US excels in some areas, it doesn't win in the metrics they chose to use. Personally, I keep using the one that shows me people from every country in the world coming here, even France, Germany, and Austria, to get health care.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2012)

Star said:


> I've heard of the occasional uber-rich person traveling to the US for some sort or other specialized medical care but the medical tourism trade is going the other direction-----but g'head, try to show me how I'm wrong about that. I think if you have any research skills at all, you'll find that there are many times more Americans going out of country for medical care than there are foreigners coming to the US for medical care.



Really? All of it you have heard of is going the other way? You should move to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California and listen some more. People might choose to go to other countries to save money, but they come here to get the best care. Since everyone insists that single payer produces the best results I want an explanation why people from single payer countries come here for the best health care.

You obviously do not have it.



Star said:


> *United States*
> 
> 
> A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[80] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[81] The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care,[80] whereas the low costs for hospital stays and major/complex procedures at Western-accredited medical facilities abroad are cited as major motivators for American travelers.[81] Also, it has been noted that the decline in value of the U.S. dollar is offering additional incentive for foreign travel to the U.S., although cost differences between the US and many locations in Asia far outweigh[_clarification needed_] any currency fluctuations.
> ...



Apparently you missed one sentence from the Wiki nonsense you posted.



> *The availability of advanced  medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as  driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for  medical care.*



Hmm, advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of doctors. Sounds like our system does better at the things people really want than single payer systems, and that the only reason people go to other countries is to save money. By extension, they also get out of date medical technology and less well treained doctors, but I suppose that is OK if you are going in for something that is not really serious.

By the way, having grown up in El Paso I understand better than most how easy it is to get cheaper medical care in another country. We even have dentists that advertise about how they save money, and they usually do decent work. I also know what happens when it goes bad, I had a friend who had a complicated pregnancy and almost died because the hospital wouldn't admit her until the doctor showed up. She did loose the baby.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 28, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why do people in places like Cuba..live longer then American citizens?

Not sure about this.


----------



## Star (Feb 28, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard of the occasional uber-rich person traveling to the US for some sort or other specialized medical care but the medical tourism trade is going the other direction-----but g'head, try to show me how I'm wrong about that. I think if you have any research skills at all, you'll find that there are many times more Americans going out of country for medical care than there are foreigners coming to the US for medical care.
> ...


 


I think you might be either confusing or conflating healthcare and healthcare coverage. The US has very good healthcare for people that are able to access healthcare, but there's the rub-----the people that are unable to access preventive care and... 



*Medical Tourism in the USA*
*A Growing Number of American Patients are Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad*

The medical tourism industry has seen a major increase in the past decade. 

Researchers have confirmed that:


In 2006, about 150,000 American citizens traveled to Latin America and Asia for medical treatment. 
In 2007, the figure increased to approximately 300,000. 
By 2010, experts say that the number could increase to well over 1 million. 
American patients are opting to undergo medical treatment abroad for procedures such as: face lifts, heart bypasses and fertility treatments. For many people who require medical treatment, the last thing they want to do is travel. However, due to the high cost of medical treatment in the USA, many American patients are going abroad for medical treatments. Their purpose is to *save 50% to 80% on medical treatment *conducted by doctors who are often trained in the United States, at hospitals that maintain the precise standards of patient care and safety.

*USA Medical Tourism - Popular Destinations *

Many American patients visit South or Central American countries like Brazil, Argentina or Costa Rica for cosmetic treatment, as they can travel cost effectively and can avail themselves of advanced cosmetic surgery. Mexico is a popular destination for American patients who need primary and dental care. "Dental Tourism" developed rapidly as Americans traveled to Central American countries such as Costa Rica for dental treatment not covered by their insurance. It is estimated that about 40% of today's medical tourism from the USA is for dental work. Costa Rica is a popular place for American medical tourists to travel to in order to receive quality dental care at about half the price.

According to a study completed in November 2007, by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), most American patients obtain medical treatment in Mexico and other Latin American countries. Currently, countries like India and Thailand provide state-of-the-art amenities for critical treatments like hip or knee replacements and cardiac surgery. Some other popular destinations are Singapore, Belgium and South Africa. Many people from Northern and Western Europe visit Central and Eastern Europe for low-priced medical and dental care.

*Reasons Why American Patients are Traveling Abroad for Medical Treatments*

Patients from the US are provided with brand new facilities and equipment due to fierce competition among hospitals and global medical tourism centers. Though price is an important factor, there are other benefits of medical tourism.

Here are a few reasons why medical tourism is rapidly gaining popularity in the USA:

*Low costs of Medical Treatment Abroad*

For most people, the lower price is the main advantage of medical tourism. USA health care costs are often higher than the combined fee of traveling and receiving medical care abroad. 


A total face and neck lift procedure can cost about $12,000 in the U.S.A, while a similar procedure will costs around $3,000-4,000 overseas. 
The price of hip replacement surgery varies from $40,000 to $65,000 in the USA, whereas a similar procedure abroad costs about $8,000 to $18,000, including traveling expenses. 
India provides reasonable prices and high quality medical services to patients from the US. The prices in India usually vary from 0.25 to one 0.1 of the price of a similar medical procedure in the USA. 
Thailand - India's major competitor - is about 20% more expensive 
Receiving medical treatment in South America can cost between 50-100% more than it would in India. 
*High quality healthcare abroad*

By doing the proper research, or consulting with a good agent, you ensure that you will receive high quality medical services with the best doctors in your destination country. 

Medical treatment centers in many of these countries offer state-of-the-art facilities. This includes new or renovated private hospitals that use cutting edge technology and equipment. The doctors in these facilities are trained to American and European standards, providing service that is equal or greater to what hospitals in USA offer. 

*Benefit of Medical tourism for minor procedures*

Patients who are undergoing minor surgery or procedures, can enjoy their recovery by staying in a relaxing vacation environment in beautiful surroundings. Patients accompanied by a family member or friend can enjoy some quality time, relaxing on the beach or going shopping. This can relieve much of the stress that builds up after a surgery. For patients receiving minor treatments, the benefits are even greater.

*Lack of Insurance*

The Miami Herald, November 2, 2008 revealed that while the USA continues to debate over their medical insurance system, 61 million people are either uninsured or under-insured. They are rejecting the American health system because it fails to meet their needs and instead they seek medical treatment abroad. 

According to David E. Williams, principal and co-founder of MedPharma partners, and author of Health Business Blog.com, the most popular medical treatments received abroad are Cosmetic and Dental surgeries as these treatments are usually not covered at all by insurance. 

*Receiving treatment anonymously*

American patients who are traveling abroad for medical treatment can receive their treatments in privacy and recover in comfort, without questions and judgment from people who know them.

*Researching medical tourism for USA patients*

Josef Woodman, the author of "Patients Beyond Borders" confirmed that for a good experience, it is essential to research available doctors, enquire about success rates, and learn about the facilities beforehand. 

There are also many quality resources available on the internet to research about medical tourism for USA citizens. The book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Patients-Beyond-Borders-Everybodys-World-Class/dp/0979107903"]"Patients Beyond Borders," written by Josef Woodman[/ame], is a good source of information about the medical travel industry. Try to interact with representatives of hospitals abroad and with patients who have already traveled abroad for treatment.

Search for institutions authorized by the Joint Commission International. It is an affiliate of the group that certifies US hospitals. Also some foreign hospitals have associations with renowned US facilities, like Johns Hopkins and the Cleveland Clinic. Learn everything you possibly can about the hospitals and doctors before traveling abroad for medical treatment.

Medical tourism for USA citizens is a safe and affordable alternative when the necessary research and precautions are taken prior to the journey.



I won't question your personal experiences with medical care on the other side of the bridge-------your story is your story-------but your personal story is just one story and it doesn't necessarily square with the average experience of Americans seeking healthcare abroad.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Because Cuba doesn't report death due to political activism?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2012)

Star said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...



Actually, I think you are confusing access to health care with health care. I would rather have a system that allows people to pay for extra coverage they want than one that only gives extra coverage to those the state approves of. One is about freedom, the other is about control.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 29, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Excellent article, thanks.


----------



## Star (Feb 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


----------



## Outback (Feb 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If I need medical treatment and have a choice of Cuba or the US then I'm coming to the US.


----------



## driveby (Feb 29, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> 
> *Feds recover $4.1B in health care fraud in 2011*
> 
> ...



Great, so throw out the other 1800 pages full of taxes increases, mandates and government intrusions. Then maybe you'll have a piece of legislation that's worth a rats ass...........


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 29, 2012)

Star said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...



I always love when a progressive trots out the trope about what the rest of the world takes for granted. I want a free market, and no one has ever presented any type of proof it is a bad idea. They keep pointing to our current system of corny capitalism and government support of favored people and argue that it proves a free market doesn't work. Gotta say, I never understood that, do you think you can explain it?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? You'd rather -pay extra- for what the rest of the industrial world takes for granted-----Yikes! talk about transferring wealth to corporate America while simultaneously putting American consumers behind the 8-ball.
> ...



There is no explaining to a 'Marketist' anymore than explaining to a Marxist. Both taken to the level of religion are dangerous.

I have offered this to 'Marketists' before. And guess what; NONE of them will even listen to this interview with a former executive VP at CIGNA.

Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 1, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...


Mr. Potter is very convincing, and I've seen him interviewed several times.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 1, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Isn't it ironic that 'Marketists' can't hear a word Potter says. It is way too threatening to their dogma.

Every other industrialized nation has figured out that not every situation fits a 'free market' solution. And none of them became socialist nations. 

The best performing healthcare systems all have one thing in common, and conversely the worst performing healthcare systems all have one thing in common. 

The best performing all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries  Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland  all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.


"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 1, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...



Marketists? Is that like communist? I actually heard that interview before, what is it you think I am supposed to here? Because what it tells me is that crony capitalism is destroying health care, which is what I said in the first place.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 2, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Really??? Then explain 'medical loss ratio' that Potter talks about? Then, explain how crony capitalism is destroying health care? And how government is the cause? 

Then explain why all but a handful of capitalist countries all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment? 

And why the bottom four countries  Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland  who all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship have the most expensive and worst performing health care systems?

And your 'people from other countries come to the US for treatment' argument has been totally debunked.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 2, 2012)

daveman said:


> ObamaCare Causes Health Insurance Premiums to Rise
> Health insurance costs continue to rise as President Obamas healthcare overhaul begins to affect Americans insurance premiums, according to a study by the *Kaiser Family Foundation* and the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET). Leaders in health policy analysis and communication, Kaiser and HRET found that annual family insurance premiums have spiked this year at a rate three times higher than in 2010, significantly outpacing wage increases and general inflation.
> 
> --​



That's Kaiser of Kaiser Permanente fame and origins - the huge insurance/managed healthcare conglomerate.

Surprise, surprise!


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 2, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Cool! So my taxes are going down? Great!
> 
> What?
> 
> Oh yeah..what was I thinking.


Your income taxes *have* gone down under Obama.

If you say they went up, you're a liar.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 2, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0]Robert Reich - 7 Lies - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 2, 2012)

alan1 said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...


^  This is considered "Rightwing Logic".


----------



## hortysir (Mar 2, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Really??? Then explain 'medical loss ratio' that Potter talks about? Then, explain how crony capitalism is destroying health care? And how government is the cause?
> 
> Then explain why all but a handful of capitalist countries all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment?
> 
> ...




Sorry, but you're going to have to back that claim up with something besides your word.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 2, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I have a better idea, instead of me explaining why the sky is blue, why don't you explain why you support the government forcong you to buy insurance from the insurance companies that are, according to you, ruining health care. That is the government supporting some companies at the expense of other companies, and is, by definition, crony capitalism.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 2, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Cool! So my taxes are going down? Great!
> ...



Are you saying that no one is paying more income taxes now than when Bush was president? If so, you are a fool.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 2, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > ObamaCare Causes Health Insurance Premiums to Rise
> ...



KFF is solid. They do good work and they haven't been associated with Kaiser Permanente for many, many years (not that KP is evil, anyway).


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 3, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Really??? Then explain 'medical loss ratio' that Potter talks about? Then, explain how crony capitalism is destroying health care? And how government is the cause?
> ...



Americas Health Care System at the Bottom of the Heap


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 3, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So you really didn't listen to the interview. If you don't understand medical loss ratio, then you don't understand how Wall Street controls the health care industry.

The answer to your question is simple...what we got IS the 'free market' version of reform. The individual mandate is a conservative idea that is essential to a 'free market' health care system, unless you want to give up no denial because of pre-existing conditions, portability and health care security.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 3, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Medical loss ratio is set by Obamacare, not Wall Street. Want to try again?


----------



## hortysir (Mar 3, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Ok, I have that link open, as well as the UK article it cited, plus the actual .pdf of the study.
I'm gonna be here a while.


But I have one question to get this discussion started;

Citing the UK article:



> The paper says the US suffers from a "relatively huge bureaucratic  burden needed to monitor the costs, behaviour and risks of customers, as  well as the immense legal costs required to control payment".



Do you honestly believe that further involvement by our government would improve on that problem??


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 3, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



True, without provisions in the Affordable Healthcare Act, Wall Street would be allowed to continue their death panels. That is one of the best provisions of the law. 

Medical Loss Ratio: Getting Your Money's Worth on Health Insurance

Today, many insurance companies spend a substantial portion of consumers premium dollars on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead, and marketing.  Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, consumers will receive more value for their premium dollar because insurance companies will be required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement, rather than on administrative costs, starting in 2011.  If they dont, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012.

On November 22, 2010, the Obama Administration issued a regulation implementing this policy, known as the medical loss ratio provision of the Affordable Care Act.  This regulation will make the insurance marketplace more transparent and make it easier for consumers to purchase plans that provide better value for their money. 

Over 20 percent of consumers who purchase coverage in the individual market today are in plans that spend more than 30 cents of every premium dollar on administrative costs.  An additional 25 percent of consumers in this market are in plans that spend between 25 and 30 cents of every premium dollar on administrative costs.  And in some extreme cases, insurance plans spend more than 50 percent of every premium dollar on administrative costs.  This regulation will help consumers get good value for their health insurance premium dollar.

In 2011, the new rules will protect up to 74.8 million insured Americans, and estimates indicate that up to 9 million Americans could be eligible for rebates starting in 2012 worth up to $1.4 billion.  Average rebates per person could total $164 in the individual market.  Important details regarding the new regulation are included below.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 3, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



There is no reason it can't be done. I am not of the mind that government can't do anything right. It can, and it has.

Doctors say VA care is a model of efficiency

The Best Care Anywhere

Ten years ago, veterans hospitals were dangerous, dirty, and scandal-ridden. Today, they're producing the highest quality care in the country. Their turnaround points the way toward solving America's health-care crisis.

The Health Care System for Veterans: An Interim Report CBO Report


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 3, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You agree with me, crony capitalism is the problem. Glad we got that settled. Now all we have to do is loosen up the government controls and let the market work to reduce costs.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 4, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Oh, we agree you deduced? How so? So, you want the government to turn health care back over to Wall Street, so stockholders can put their profits before patients, who are STAKEholders in our health care system. The 'market' has/had TOO much control withOUT government regulation and oversight.

Now, do we still agree???


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 4, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Hey, genius, please explain why you think market means Wall Street. Is it because you still do not understand the difference between crony capitalism and the free market?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 4, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It's because you didn't watch the fucking interview with a 15 year executive with CIGNA who identified WALL STREET. Instead you use idiotic catch phrases like 'crony capitalism' which doesn't apply to the problem. It all has to do with your dogmatic ignorance. You have found 'religion'...you're are a Marketist. No different than a Marxist.

Here is an apology by the same CIGNA executive VP. READ IT, and educate yourself. Shed your fucking ignorance. Become a thinking person, not a fucking parrot!

Wendell Potter: Rally Against Wall Street's Health Care Takeover

I would like to begin by apologizing to all of you for the role I played 15 years ago in cheating you out of a reformed health care system. Had it not been for greedy insurance companies and other special interests, and their army of lobbyists and spin-doctors like I used to be, we wouldn't be here today.

I'm ashamed that I let myself get caught up in deceitful and dishonest PR campaigns that worked so well, hundreds of thousands of our citizens have died, and millions of others have lost their homes and been forced into bankruptcy, so that a very few corporate executives and their Wall Street masters could become obscenely rich.

But it was only during the last few years of my career that I came to realize the full scope of the harm my colleagues and I had caused, and the lengths that insurance companies will go to increase their profits at the expense of working families.

As I told the Senate Commerce Committee two months ago, the higher up the corporate ladder I climbed, the more I could see how insurance companies confuse their customers and dump the sick  all so they can satisfy those Wall Street masters.

I described for the senators how insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, how they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and how they make it nearly impossible to understand -- or even to obtain -- information consumers need.

I also told the Committee how the industry has conducted duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns every time Congress has tried to reform our health care system -- and how its current behind-scenes-efforts may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans.

I noted that, just as the industry did 15 years ago when it led the effort to kill the Clinton reform plan, it is using shills and front groups to spread lies and disinformation to scare Americans away from the very reform that would benefit them most.

Make no mistake, the industry, despite its public assurances to be good-faith partners with the President and Congress, has been at work for years laying the groundwork for devious and often sinister campaigns to manipulate public opinion.

The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. But I know from having served on many trade group committees that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with their ability to increase their companies' profits.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Mar 4, 2012)

theHawk said:


> All entitlement programs are subjects of massive fraud.  Hence why we shouldn't have them.



Lord knows it's IMPOSSIBLE for Americans to run anything with integrity.  

Make sure that baby gets tossed out with that nasty ol' bath water.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 4, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Let me try this one more time, Wall Street and Congress are in bed together. Pointing at Wall Street as the problem is no different tan pointing at Congress as the problem. Wall Street is the ultimate symbol of crony capitalism, not the ultimate symbol of the free market. If the government did not support the efforts of the insurance industry to get away with all the things you keep complaining about the undustry would not get away with them.

In other words, you are the problem because you are one of the idiots that keep saying that the problem is something that _does not exist_ and then you demand that the actual problem step in and fix the problem.


----------



## LilOlLady (Mar 4, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 4, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> You don't seem to realize that most Americans cannot pay for what they need and what they want is a luxury only the elite can afford.



You don't seem to realize that most people cannot afford a Rolls Royce either. Should the government force everyone to buy Kia's because some people can't afford a Rolls?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 4, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And you're the idiot whose solution is the let Wall Street run free of any regulations...then SOMEHOW, they will become good boys and girls.

The core of the problem is health care will never fit a 'free market' solution. Anyone with an adult brain who understands the basics of a market based transaction can see that the incentives, stakes and leverage are fatally flawed...LITERALLY.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 4, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I have no problem with regulations, as long as they are not designed to keep other companies from competing with the ones that already exist.

Really? Why would I want Wall Street not to have to answer to rules? I just don't


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 18, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> 
> [BFeds recover $4.1B in h]ealth care fraud in 2011[/B]
> 
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 18, 2012)

usmcstinger said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
> ...


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 18, 2012)

The Liberals aka Marxists only believe what makes sense in the delusional world they live in.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 18, 2012)

usmcstinger said:


> The Liberals aka Marxists only believe what makes sense in the delusional world they live in.



So, you are obtuse to what Republicans did? Why am I not surprised?? I will let George W. Bush's former speechwriter explain it to you. BTW, he was fired by the right wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute for telling the truth.

Freedom of speech on the right: the freedom to parrot the propaganda you're being fed, OR ELSE.

Waterloo | FrumForum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo  just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romneys Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.


----------



## Rozman (Mar 18, 2012)

I have a question that I would like to answered by both sides.
Is it possible for a company that insures it's employees to drop
the coverage and decide to pay the fine because it's cheaper under Obamacare
then to pay the insurance company.

Then the employer hands out the list of exchanges that the employee will
have to make arrangements with for coverage.

Anyone have an opinion on this?


----------



## Rozman (Mar 18, 2012)

I found a lot of articles that speculate this will be true
but these articles were written a while back.
Nothing more recent.I'm wondering if this was addressed 
or are the Libs slipping this one past us.

If this is the case then Obama lied to America
when he said those who have coverage nothing will change
and we can still see our same Doctor and have the same coverage.


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 19, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------

