Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 79
Thanks Tree26Thanks

Thread: How can 14 Million lose coverage next year?

  1. #51
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    18,987
    Thanks
    10700

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    I did? Where?
    The link is in the post.

    "Where"?

    Can't keep up with your own bullshit, huh?

    You'll just continue to spew the same lies and distortions anyway.

    Thx

  2. #52
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    33,467
    Thanks
    7707

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    The link is in the post.

    "Where"?

    Can't keep up with your own bullshit, huh?

    You'll just continue to spew the same lies and distortions anyway.

    Thx
    Really? Where?

    Two different claims.

  3. #53
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    18,987
    Thanks
    10700

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    Really? Where?

    Two different claims.
    Oh the fuck you say...

    CBO #'s out 14MILL less insured by next year under TRUMPCARE, 24 mil by 2026

    It's the same claim you made in the linked thread: "Obama took $500 billion out of Medicare." read the damn thing, you simply upped the ante to $700 billion

    Thx
    Last edited by Thx1138; 14th March 2017 at 04:02 PM.

  4. #54
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    18,987
    Thanks
    10700

    From
    aMEEErica
    It's actually the Ryan plan that cuts $700 billion from Medicare:

    Our ruling

    Cutter said that Romney attacked Obama for cutting $700 billion out of Medicare, but "Paul Ryan protected those cuts in his budget." Again, with this item we are not addressing whether they are cuts, but simply whether she is correctly characterizing Ryan's plan.

    Cutter is correct that the Ryan budget plan included cost savings that were part of the future health care law. Just recently, the Romney campaign backed away from that play, saying Romney’s plan would restore the spending that the health law is set to curtail, such as extra funding for private insurers under the Medicare Advantage plan.

    Still, Cutter was right about the Ryan plan. We rate her statement True.

    Ryan's plan includes $700 billion in Medicare "cuts," says Stephanie Cutter | PolitiFact

    Thx

  5. #55
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13,384
    Thanks
    3592

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    It's going to happen, regardless. We can keep pretending these centrally managed "Great Societies"....these castles made of sand.... can be tweaked and bandaged and taxed and regulated and monetized to one day deliver permanent Collectivist Utopia where no one wants for anything, but the truth of the matter is that it's all going to collapse in on itself at some point.

    Incrementally pulling back...incrementally attritioning people off of centralized dependency over a few decades...will make that inevitable collapse far less spectacular, far less tragic.
    Doomsday prophecies aside, should current law allow or even require medical providers, who have available means on hand to treat and cure illnesses, fix injuries and save lives, to deprive those who need it based on payment? If yes, then your next task is to convince everyone else.

  6. #56
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    25,772
    Thanks
    9456

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Doomsday prophecies aside, should current law allow or even require medical providers, who have available means on hand to treat and cure illnesses, fix injuries and save lives, to deprive those who need it based on payment? If yes, then your next task is to convince everyone else.
    I'm feeling lazy, so I'll paste some previous comments on the matter....

    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    The primary reason health insurance premiums are high is because healthcare is expensive, and the primary reason healthcare is expensive is because the end consumer of healthcare has been divorced from the actual cost of healthcare by a government that implements, mandates, and incentivizes Third Party Payer systems like HMOs, PPOs, Medicare, Medicaid....vast pools of nameless, faceless money that is ripe for the taking.

    There's no real competition for the end user's healthcare dollars... were there, healthcare costs would have to come down to accommodate what people can afford. As it stands, the healthcare provider industry can simply loot the healthcare insurance industry which must turn around and recoup the costs of $90.00 aspirin or $20.00 Q-tips from their policyholders....who think they're getting a bargain because they can take their sniffling or minor scraped and bruised children to the doctor for a $20 copay policy that their employer is picking up half the tab for.
    solutions...

    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    [...]

    The solution lies in freedom....not mandates or paternalistic, state managed, 'From Each, To Each' collectivism.

    'Allow' the health insurance industry to offer quality, customizable policies that aren't saddled with extraneous and unwanted 'minimum coverage' mandates....let people buy what they want and can afford....like a higher deductible, low monthly premium catastrophic injury/illness/yearly check-up plan when they're younger, and not likely to need much healthcare. (stop saddling the young, healthy and hale who are trying to amass wealth in their lower middle/middle class jobs with the healthcare costs associated with 50 or 60 year old obese pigs and alcoholics who've been working and (should have been) amassing wealth for 30 years.

    'Allow' people to set up healthcare savings accounts that double as a handsome annuity if they don't use much, or abuse, healthcare services (would help incentivize healthier lifestyles).

    Add people with preexisting conditions to the Medicare rolls....give them a Medicare 'credit card' (including active and retired military....roll the hundreds of billions spent for the VA into the Medicare system) that bills the medicare system for services rendered.

    'Allow' employers to incentivize their employees to fully ensure themselves so HMOs and PPOs...which exacerbate the healthcare cost control problems associated with Third Party Payer constructs....are relegated to the dustbin of history. Less mandated "benefits" borne by employers can translate into bigger paychecks..which can more easily afford a health insurance policy.

    Set a maximum damage award for malpractice, and revoke the medical licenses of doctors who rack up more than two judgements. (Ambulance Chasers and bad doctors will pitch a fit...fuck them)

    Keep Medicare for the aged (and preexisting conditions), and Medicaid for the destitute.

    'Allow' hospital emergency rooms to turn away people who aren't covered by any of the above. No health care system can ever work if people are allowed to show up at an emergency room and be treated for "free".
    Last edited by webrockk; 14th March 2017 at 04:58 PM.

  7. #57
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13,384
    Thanks
    3592

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    The primary reason health insurance premiums are high is because healthcare is expensive, and the primary reason healthcare is expensive is because the end consumer of healthcare has been divorced from the actual cost of healthcare by a government that implements, mandates, and incentivizes Third Party Payer systems like HMOs, PPOs, Medicare, Medicaid....vast pools of nameless, faceless money that is ripe for the taking.
    This is only one element of why it is expensive. The other is that demand for life-saving care is extremely inelastic for those who need that care. People will sell their possessions, take on maximum amounts of debt, go into debt with the Russian mafia, anything to save their own life or the life of a loved one. Death is torturous for people, so they'll do anything to save the life. If they are not entitled to health care, and they come up short on funds to purchase an available, on-hand medical procedure or service or device that would save the life, and the person dies, the family and friends and even strangers feel like the deprivation of that medical care essentially killed the person out of intentional neglect. Virtually no one tolerates this sort of idea. Therefore demand is as inelastic as could be imagined, even in a hypothetical cash-only system.

    The solution lies in freedom....not mandates or paternalistic, state managed, 'From Each, To Each' collectivism.

    'Allow' the health insurance industry to offer quality, customizable policies that aren't saddled with extraneous and unwanted 'minimum coverage' mandates....let people buy what they want and can afford....like a higher deductible, low monthly premium catastrophic injury/illness/yearly check-up plan when they're younger, and not likely to need much healthcare. (stop saddling the young, healthy and hale who are trying to amass wealth in their lower middle/middle class jobs with the healthcare costs associated with 50 or 60 year old obese pigs and alcoholics who've been working and (should have been) amassing wealth for 30 years.
    This requires more concentrated costs on older policyholders. The higher those costs go, the more potential there is for adverse selection.

    'Allow' people to set up healthcare savings accounts that double as a handsome annuity if they don't use much, or abuse, healthcare services (would help incentivize healthier lifestyles).
    I have nothing against this but it doesn't solve much of our problem given retirement savings rates are abysmal, and because we've saddled people who have to save for their own retirement with astronomical public pension liability to boot. Again, nothing against this idea, in fact saving for health and retirement should be bunded together and the IRS limits should be significantly hiked.

    Add people with preexisting conditions to the Medicare rolls....give them a Medicare 'credit card' (including active and retired military....roll the hundreds of billions spent for the VA into the Medicare system) that bills the medicare system for services rendered.
    Fine but this kind of just moves some money around the table.

    'Allow' employers to incentivize their employees to fully ensure themselves so HMOs and PPOs...which exacerbate the healthcare cost control problems associated with Third Party Payer constructs....are relegated to the dustbin of history. Less mandated "benefits" borne by employers can translate into bigger paychecks..which can more easily afford a health insurance policy.
    I support separating health insurance from employment.

    [quote]Set a maximum damage award for malpractice, and revoke the medical licenses of doctors who rack up more than two judgements. (Ambulance Chasers and bad doctors will pitch a fit...fuck them)

    Keep Medicare for the aged (and preexisting conditions), and Medicaid for the destitute.
    That's gotta be well over half the country's population, and public dollars already accounts for 8+% of our nation's GDP (though that's only half what we spend on health overall) and plays an integral role in why costs are the way they are, so that's quite the concession in terms of a set of otherwise anti-government health solution.

    'Allow' hospital emergency rooms to turn away people who aren't covered by any of the above. No health care system can ever work if people are allowed to show up at an emergency room and be treated for "free".
    A repeal of EMTALA is pie-in-the-sky.

  8. #58
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    25,772
    Thanks
    9456

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    This is only one element of why it is expensive. The other is that demand for life-saving care is extremely inelastic for those who need that care. People will sell their possessions, take on maximum amounts of debt, go into debt with the Russian mafia, anything to save their own life or the life of a loved one. Death is torturous for people, so they'll do anything to save the life. If they are not entitled to health care, and they come up short on funds to purchase an available, on-hand medical procedure or service or device that would save the life, and the person dies, the family and friends and even strangers feel like the deprivation of that medical care essentially killed the person out of intentional neglect. Virtually no one tolerates this sort of idea. Therefore demand is as inelastic as could be imagined, even in a hypothetical cash-only system.



    This requires more concentrated costs on older policyholders. The higher those costs go, the more potential there is for adverse selection.



    I have nothing against this but it doesn't solve much of our problem given retirement savings rates are abysmal, and because we've saddled people who have to save for their own retirement with astronomical public pension liability to boot. Again, nothing against this idea, in fact saving for health and retirement should be bunded together and the IRS limits should be significantly hiked.



    Fine but this kind of just moves some money around the table.



    I support separating health insurance from employment.

    Set a maximum damage award for malpractice, and revoke the medical licenses of doctors who rack up more than two judgements. (Ambulance Chasers and bad doctors will pitch a fit...fuck them)



    That's gotta be well over half the country's population, and public dollars already accounts for 8+% of our nation's GDP (though that's only half what we spend on health overall) and plays an integral role in why costs are the way they are, so that's quite the concession in terms of a set of otherwise anti-government health solution.



    A repeal of EMTALA is pie-in-the-sky.
    Okay. If some version of government managed collectivist healthcare is the only acceptable way forward, how do we fund it? CERTAINLY not by the current tax code. Let's pretend for a moment that I don't have any issues with constitutionality....I could possibly be dragged kicking and screaming into such a system, but not if it's funded by the 75 million or so net taxpayers who already pay the nation's freight.

    My first instinct would be to scrap the current progressive tax system and implement a national consumption based tax system that puts everybody's skin in the game. You simply cannot expect half the workforce to willingly fund everything everybody wants forever...they're already outnumbered at the ballot box. What happens during major economic downturns? Where would spending and cost controls come from if the majority is permitted to constantly saddle the minority with their largesse? That's a recipe for growing contempt that will only hasten the demise of our "Great Society"

    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    Just to get a rough idea, a general fingernail sketch; the good, the bad and the ugly. (There are much more complexities involved, but I'm just trying show an approximate rate a basic national consumption tax would need to be to match current revenue collection)

    Real GDP is approximately $16.7 trillion. A national consumption based tax rate of 19.5% would equal current tax receipts of approximately $3.26 trillion (this does not account for deficit spending...roughly $600 billion, but we're not too worried about that now, apparently). If profit taxes were retained (I'd like to eliminate them, too), the tax rate would fall to 17.5%. Combining either of these figures to the average 7.5% sales tax collected by states would represent a total consumption tax levy of 27% and 25%, respectively.

    Inflation increases consumer costs a comparable amount roughly every 7.5 years. The economy has not collapsed.

    Approximately $450 billion would be eliminated from what taxpayers pay each year to be taxed under the current system.

    There would be jobs lost in the public sector and the CPA/Tax Preparer industry, but that $450 billion would find its way into other segments of the economy, so things would even out.

    The approximately $2 trillion that comprises the underground economy would be taxed at consumption tax rates (which would roughly equal, if not be more than the current tax revenue culled from business profits...which, again, if the status quo were retained, the national consumption tax rate could fall another 2% to 15.5%)
    But at the same time, couldn't states manage it? Couldn't individual states appeal to their residents by explaining the pros and cons of a state managed Single Payer/UHC system...the major con being that their state sales tax will increase from 7.5% to 23% or so?
    Last edited by webrockk; 14th March 2017 at 06:01 PM.

  9. #59
    vulgar? Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    56,933
    Thanks
    29444

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    There isn't even that many on the exchanges. So, for that number to be accurate every single person who signup up for Obamacare would lose their coverage, not replace it, and a few million more not on the exchanges would have to lose their insurance as well.

    The numbers do not support the CBO.
    What nonsense! The CBO does more than just tweet out an opinion. They work with numbers. Their report is detailed and demonstrates the facts behind their statements.

    Read the report. Show us where it is in error. Here's the link: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  10. #60
    Established Member BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,433
    Thanks
    3061

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by goldendog View Post
    I heard that when a person starts threads in the current events it is supposed to have links supporting the OP. These are just your interpretations of what facts?
    You are trying to divert topics again based on your interpretations of nothing factual..nothing new.
    He is a Goofball.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 17th January 2017, 04:25 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 26th November 2013, 02:08 PM
  3. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 13th November 2013, 03:46 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 27th February 2013, 07:40 PM
  5. How To Lose $545 Million Online In Six Years
    By boontito in forum Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30th June 2011, 07:51 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed