(03-23-2010 01:41 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 11:45 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 08:24 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 02:27 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 12:03 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  good chart:

And that is why the plan calls for 2000 more IRS employees. And you thought filling out your taxes was fun before...

Make that 16000.

Expanding government, mandatory health insurance, no socialism here.

I am sure everyone will have forgotten about this come November, so as Rahm Emanuel says, the Democrats really have nothing to worry about.

well, since you are so against it, then why don't you rally people to actually make a difference?

What a great idea!

In case you have not noticed, it's already happening. Haven't you noticed all TEA parties spontaneously springing up around the nation. They will be getting bigger, once the payroll taxes increase.

tea parties are a good idea for those against the current gov't policies....but right now they are still but grassroots. has to be larger scale

(03-23-2010 12:25 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  George, you're partially right. It can be argued that it doesn't save money in the long, but not really for the reason you explained. Part of the reason preventative care is not cheaper according to some is because people live longer, and the old are more expensive. Until they get old, it is cheaper. And then you could argue, well that person lived a longer life, and a longer sustained career peak (40's - 60's) paying more high taxes, etc.. but that part requires more complicated math and it would just depend on where in the chain you are deciding to count the numbers. Direct or indirect costs to society and what have you. And that's why people on both sides can argue for it one way or the other, particularly in a talking points where you don't get into the detailed math of it and can just cite random numbers w/o explaining them.

That heart test study example though is not really what is implied by preventative care, it's not just random tests for everyone. Of course if we tested 100 healthy people for a bunch of miscellaneous disceases you aren't going to get much accomplished.

When you are referring to preventative care it's more like this:
Guy without insurance, "my chest hurts, but not too bad, I'll be fine." "It's hard to go upstairs", etc.. for a couple years, but he never goes to the doctor b/c it's too expensive, and he thinks to himself, it's really not that bad, he can live with it. Then he has a massive heart attack and requires multiple emergency surgeries that taxpayers have to pay for b/c the guy has no insurance and can't afford the care. He is unable to afford everything that needs to be done, can no longer live a full and healthy life, and his downward spiral towards a much earlier death, and less successful life has begun.

Guy with insurance: first time he has chest pain he goes to the doctor, finds out what is wrong, and takes the much cheaper, simpler measures to fix the problem before it becomes serious. Saves a ton of money early on, and makes more money b/c he lives a healthy life. Downside, he lives much longer, eventually getting to the point he can enjoy social security, medicaid, and other benefits for seniors. He has now become a burden on the tax payer, and b/c he's healthy.. he could be for quite a while. But he did pay more taxes by living a healthier, more successful life.

Edit: Downside financially.. not downside for him obviously, of course the guy would rather would live longer.

HF:

That is not what that letter says, nor the study it references. From the letter - "Although different types of of preventative care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventative services, expanded utilitization leads to higher, not lower, spending overall."

http://images.redstate.com/08-07-Prevention.pdf

And from the study - "Although some preventative measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/358/7/661.pdf

George, perhaps I misread what you were implying, although that still doesn't actually dispute what I said. Cholestoral management would basically be the situation I described. I mean clearly they go in to a lot more detail then I did, but the point stands, people who get early treatment can often end up more expensive later.
Not to mention it's from redstate.com, obviously it's a bit biased in their wording. (just as it would be from dailykos.com on the other side of the argument).

While I'm sure their numbers make sense for the argument they are making, I stand by what I wrote also. I think in the end we're not really disagreeing though, it does cost more to keep people alive eventually as I said. It's just how you view the benefits of it, and how you account for that, that would shape your argument on the subject.

The red state link is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office. And, the other is the New England Medical Journal.

I'm comfortable with those as impartial sites.

(03-23-2010 01:41 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 11:45 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 08:24 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 02:27 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 12:03 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  good chart:

And that is why the plan calls for 2000 more IRS employees. And you thought filling out your taxes was fun before...

Make that 16000.

Expanding government, mandatory health insurance, no socialism here.

I am sure everyone will have forgotten about this come November, so as Rahm Emanuel says, the Democrats really have nothing to worry about.

well, since you are so against it, then why don't you rally people to actually make a difference?

What a great idea!

In case you have not noticed, it's already happening. Haven't you noticed all TEA parties spontaneously springing up around the nation. They will be getting bigger, once the payroll taxes increase.

Just keep the kooks away. You know, the ones that spit on congressmen, call congressmen the "N" word. Call the gay congressman a "******". Can't leave out the ones that throw money at sick people because they are for the health plan. Last but not least the ones who use violent imagery in opposition to the healthcare bill. Like this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjbrenchley/4448018629/

(03-23-2010 08:33 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  The red state link is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office. And, the other is the New England Medical Journal.

I'm comfortable with those as impartial sites.

So now you are ok with what the CBO says?

(03-24-2010 12:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 08:33 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  The red state link is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office. And, the other is the New England Medical Journal.

I'm comfortable with those as impartial sites.

So now you are ok with what the CBO says?

Pretty much always have been. I read the CBO summary letters on their opinions, unlike you. You take Pelosi's word that the last bill reduced the deficit according to the CBO. In fact, they didn't say that. They said it increases it, when the Medicare doctor fix is included. The AP reported that Friday night.

I'll ask this assuming you won't have the decency to answer. Have you ever read the actual CBO opinions/letters, to actually educate yourself on the bill?

(03-22-2010 03:20 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 02:48 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  I'm enjoying the angst of those predicting the sky to fall and sweeping socialism to overtake America.

Are you enjoying spending your grandchildren's money with this bill?

Remember, the CBO actually put it in the red, when considering the Medicare doctor fixes.

If it helps save some lives, I am ok with it. I am not ok with a lot of the spending that has gone on in the past, like the war in Iraq.

(03-23-2010 12:09 PM)BarsemaBone Wrote:  Details about the lawsuit filed by 13 states against the health-care bill 7 minutes after the President signed it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-a...5477.story

I don't know if people are doing this for entirely the right reasons, but everyone can pretty much see where this is going to end up. It'll go all the way to the Supreme Court and because there's a conservative majority, it'll probably be overturned and declared unconstitutional, at least that's how I see it.

What struck me about this is that it's not just all southern states as one would think. When you see states like Pennsylvania, which historically is a state that can fall to either side of the aisle, taking part in this, it seems to me that there are some people thinking logically about this.

They were 13 republican states attorneys.

Barsema, I'd say you are seeing it quite wrong. Agree or disagree with the bill, the states lawsuits are going no where. It's just republican state's attorney's looking towards their next election by making a big deal about it.

Quote:One of the states' claims is based on a simple misreading of the health reform law.

The lawsuit claims that it compels the states to enforce the federal law or to operate exchanges that would make health insurance available to consumers. Section 1321 gives states the choice of doing so or not, and if states elect not to do so, the federal government will enforce the law and operate the exchange in the state.

No state has to do anything, except make its choice known to the federal government. Moreover, section 1333 of the act allows states to apply for a waiver to take a completely different approach to covering their residents if they have a better idea.

The complaint also attacks the provisions of the law that provide Medicaid coverage for all Americans whose income is under 133 percent of the poverty level. These Medicaid expansions are not effective until 2014, and the federal government pays the entire cost until 2017, after which the state's share gradually increases to 10 percent by 2020.

It is hard to understand how the states are harmed in any way by the billions of dollars the Medicaid expansions will pour into their states to cover millions of their residents, many of whom would otherwise be treated by providers without compensation. But in any event, states can simply opt out of Medicaid if they choose not to participate.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/24/jo...hallenges/

(03-24-2010 12:47 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 01:41 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 11:45 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(03-23-2010 08:24 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 02:27 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 12:03 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  good chart:

And that is why the plan calls for 2000 more IRS employees. And you thought filling out your taxes was fun before...

Make that 16000.

Expanding government, mandatory health insurance, no socialism here.

I am sure everyone will have forgotten about this come November, so as Rahm Emanuel says, the Democrats really have nothing to worry about.

well, since you are so against it, then why don't you rally people to actually make a difference?

What a great idea!

In case you have not noticed, it's already happening. Haven't you noticed all TEA parties spontaneously springing up around the nation. They will be getting bigger, once the payroll taxes increase.

Just keep the kooks away. You know, the ones that spit on congressmen, call congressmen the "N" word. Call the gay congressman a "******". Can't leave out the ones that throw money at sick people because they are for the health plan. Last but not least the ones who use violent imagery in opposition to the healthcare bill. Like this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjbrenchley/4448018629/

The left are not the ones who should be preaching about decorum during a protest. Look at some of these.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...ening-bush

Spitting on people is a horrible way to get your message out. Even worse is throwing liquid feces on the police like they do at the WTO protests, as shown.

http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3960

I am sure that if you scour the thousands upon thousands of protesters from the many TEA parties across the nation, you will find some nut jobs. You know that the left-leaning media is specifically looking for the worst images of the protesters that they can find, to try to denegrade the whole movement, and seeing what little they have actually found speaks volumes for the civility of the TEA party.

Those on the left, who have attended their own left version of public protests (be it anti-war, global warming, or pot legalization) should take some pride in the TEA party protests.

The left has shown that community organizing can put one of your own in the White House, so now the right is doing it. Immitation is flattery

SPIN THIS.

Seven of the last ten administrations have been Republican controlled. They had opportunities to do SOMETHING to improve the health care system. Where have they been hiding?

(03-24-2010 11:48 AM)cyberdawg Wrote:  SPIN THIS.

Seven of the last ten administrations have been Republican controlled. They had opportunities to do SOMETHING to improve the health care system. Where have they been hiding?

First of all, doing something is not always better than doing nothing, if the something is a rotten solution.

Secondly, most conservatives are for things like making privately purchased insurance tax deductible, disconnecting insurance from your job, blah, blah. I am personally disappointed that the Hastert's etc did not take it up.

And, if we have a health care crisis, and if thousands of people die a day from lack of insurance, why does it take until 2014 for the benefits part of this law to kick in? How many people are going to die between now and then?

See the below story on the delay in benefits, plus the hole in the law for coverage of children with pre-existing conditions.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-hea...l?x=0&.v=1

(03-22-2010 11:25 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  Shortened for HuskieFan84

Quote:Nice try but there is NOTHING in the bill that allows for federal funding for abortions. But keep believing what you want.

If Obama keeps his word to Stupak, he will disallow federal funding for abortion by executive order. Why would a Democrat like Bart Stupak risk his party allegience to protest an abortion provision that you claim does not exist. Is he just stupid?

Stupak is a granstanding idiot trying to keep the Catholic vote. coniving and yes possibly stupid.

In case you have not noticed, it's already happening. Haven't you noticed all TEA parties spontaneously springing up around the nation. They will be getting bigger, once the payroll taxes increase.
[/quote]

Spontaneously don't make me laugh so damn hard, the teabaggers are a creation of FUX news. They started and encouraged the whole thing, they are a creation of an organization that supports a distorted reality. Fux is not a new org they are a show, they are like the WWF or WCW. They create drama, nothing more.

(03-24-2010 12:06 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-24-2010 11:48 AM)cyberdawg Wrote:  SPIN THIS.

Seven of the last ten administrations have been Republican controlled. They had opportunities to do SOMETHING to improve the health care system. Where have they been hiding?

First of all, doing something is not always better than doing nothing, if the something is a rotten solution.

Secondly, most conservatives are for things like making privately purchased insurance tax deductible, disconnecting insurance from your job, blah, blah. I am personally disappointed that the Hastert's etc did not take it up.

And, if we have a health care crisis, and if thousands of people die a day from lack of insurance, why does it take until 2014 for the benefits part of this law to kick in? How many people are going to die between now and then?

See the below story on the delay in benefits, plus the hole in the law for coverage of children with pre-existing conditions.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-hea...l?x=0&.v=1

So what you are saying is that the Republicans didn't want to lose the lobbying money. They are claiming to have "great" ideas on how to fix it but did not do so. Was the system not screwed up when they were in office?

(03-23-2010 10:11 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(03-22-2010 04:40 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  You'd think the federal government mandated its citizens to buy a product with the threat of penalty if they did not comply.

Car insurance is already something that is mandated. I realize you are making a distinction between fed/states, but the same logic can and does apply to healthcare. People walking around uninsured ARE a liability, especially with the current system. Take a look at your local emergency department. And we (i.e., people who pay taxes) are going to pay for it regardless. We can either pay for it on the front end (when conditions are generally non-existent or in early stages and can be managed preemptively and are generally less expensive) or we can pay for it on the back end (when conditions are compounded, have spiralled out of control, and are now rather expensive).

If you don't own a car, you don't have to buy insurance. There is a big difference. In order to have the privelege to drive, you need insurance.