Another health care thread.

DFWTraveler5, the current bill doesn't cut "half" of Medicare's funding. It's a very small percent that is supposed to be made up by increasing effeciency and cutting provider reimbursements. The 2010 Budget request for Medicare is $823 billion.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PerformanceBu.../CMSFY11CJ.pdf

The Senate bill was to cut $500 billion out of Medicare over ten years. If those cuts were spread out equally -- and yes, I know that they are not -- it's around a 6% cut. In fact, the cuts in up front years are less, in out years, a bit more. But let's put this in perspective, at no time do the cuts approach your figure of "half."

And as for incremental change, it won't work. The CBO has estimated that gutting the malpractice system will save, at most 1% of health care premiums. And it's not really a savings, as the costs of the malpractice epidemic are still fully borne by those who are malpractices. The real solution isn't to eliminate or cut back on compensation, but to cut back on the actual malpractice. A recent medical study showed that there were 98,000 preventable medical deaths a year in the U.S. That's deaths only, not injuries. That's an epidemic of malpractice. That's like two 737s crashing every day throughout the year and the airline industry asking for immunity rather than being held accountable!! Does that sound like a good idea to you?

I don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut if the deficit goes up. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

this line struck me...i think its one of the defining differences between people who vote liberal/dem and those who vote conservative....

i was listening to a radio talk show thing once..and this guy calls in..he said..look..i dont care abt the deficit or anything..i will die one day and i want mine now..i want to have everything and i dont care who its bothers or who has to pay....you conservatives dont get it...

i hear conservatives talk about leaving a debt to our grandchildren and ruining future generations freedom and handing off less liberty to the next generation...which we do when we add to the debt..we limit future generations liberty and choices and layer up either crushing taxes or a ruinous economy on them...i think that argument falls on deaf ears to most people who vote dem...they dont care, they want theirs...

i know that republican politicians have gone along with this debt thing for decades...and they are co-dependents...
im not talking abt those idiots...they have voted for idiotic things for political reasons or to not look like kooks to the liberal media....i'm talking about the great unwashed..the common man (and woman) who just think about right and wrong ..or about i want mine...as the case may be..and vote.

You pay more to cover a employee with children because there are more people who are insured, and hence more risk. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I feel like I'm talking with my kids, who figure if they just don't admit it...then no one knows for sure that it is true.

I guess using your thought process, if I just pay a single woman less...because she doesn't have more mouths to feed than her own, then that is OK (and I am not discriminating) if I pay her male counterpart more because he is taking care of a whole family. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how you see it.

My statement may have been over the top. I really do care but after a few hundred trillion does it matter any more?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

, the current bill doesn't cut "half" of Medicare's funding. It's a very small percent that is supposed to be made up by increasing effeciency and cutting provider reimbursements. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

What government are you talking about? I've never seen anything approaching efficiency from the boys on Capitol Hill.

What government are you talking about? I've never seen anything approaching efficiency from the boys on Capitol Hill. Originally Posted by John Bull

I thought the Defense industry was pretty efficient. Why don't we get them to run health care. The people on the right never seem to have a problem spending on Defense. Knock out two birds with one stone.

I thought the Defense industry was pretty efficient. Why don't we get them to run health care. The people on the right never seem to have a problem spending on Defense. Knock out two birds with one stone. Originally Posted by WTF

Having worked in the defense industry, I can tell you the government side is not that efficient, but even though the private sector is more efficient, I was still laying off employees every year until the GAO signed off on contract money. Sometimes the lay-offs lasted up to a month. I know it's not that long of a duration, but SoCal is no place to live without an income. Of the 3 contracts I ran, I had 1/5th of the employees the government "competitor" had and they were bidding 5000 hours to our 1500 hours per conversion. My team regularly completed all conversions under budget with early deliveries. The government "competitor" routinely over-ran budgets with deliveries being months late and one that went well over a year to deliver. The private sector in defense can only be as efficient as the government that is funding it.

If the HC bill is passed and has the same type of funding as medicare, the only thing that would happen is large deficits if they under-estimate budgets, which could lead to rationing, as we see in the case of Native American health care which is appropriated funds and not a permanent fund like medicare. The Congressman Rogers video above shows where rationing is the norm for common cancers in GB.

If the HC bill is passed and has the same type of funding as medicare, the only thing that would happen is large deficits if they under-estimate budgets, which could lead to rationing, as we see in the case of Native American health care which is appropriated funds and not a permanent fund like medicare. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

the proposed cut half billion in medicare, to be spent elsewhere, is classic obama fraudspeak...when he talks about the cut in spending for medicare being designed to save it...all the while spending the cut elsewhere...it will save it....as he says...with a huge unspoken proviso... if the providers accept less and be willing to continue to provide care for medicare recipients at reduced rates or if rationing takes place....either way thats the plan

if the providers accept less and be willing to continue to provide care for medicare recipients at reduced rates or if rationing takes place....either way thats the plan Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Uhhhh that is what one does when you do not have an unlimited supply of money.

We are going to have to start making some hard choices. Call it what you want.

I find it strange that on one hand you want to cut government spending and on the other you defend it.

The private sector in defense can only be as efficient as the government that is funding it. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Is it really private sector when the government sets the agenda? I find this strange logic.

It appears to me that this so called private sector is really just another govt program.

What say you?

...Is it really private sector when the government sets the agenda? I find this strange logic.

It appears to me that this so called private sector is really just another govt program.

What say you? Originally Posted by WTF

That would be a bit paradoxical I suppose. Some people complain about the private sector defense industry and profits, but if the government is funding them, why do they complain about the private sector when it's technically the govt setting the agenda; policies and procedures?

I suppose this isn't part of the original post, another thread topic?

Uhhhh that is what one does when you do not have an unlimited supply of money.

We are going to have to start making some hard choices. Call it what you want.

I find it strange that on one hand you want to cut government spending and on the other you defend it.



What say you? Originally Posted by WTF

where did i defend spending? i was merely attacking lying and falsehood and doublespeak.

as far as medicare is concerned..we do spend too much....its terrible.....ive paid medicare taxes all my life...we all have..it should be there when we need it...only the politicians pass out goodies indiscriminately for their own favor and benefit.. screwing up things that should be there..and please dont get me started on social security....

btw since when did obama stop to think abt not having an unlimited supply of money? i think he just wants to change the spending around plus some

I employ about 74 people. We spend about $39,000 per month on health care. We just received a notice from our current carrier that they want to take our premiums up by $10,920 per month, a 28% increase. We are negotiating. I do not know that we can afford it without passing some of it along to the employees. We will try our damndest.

The problem is with the rising COST of healthcare. We had 4 pregnancies, 2 heart attacks, several diabetics and the usual raft of medical issues in the mix.

One of the pregnancies was for premature twins. They are fabulous now and we all adore them. Total cost to the plan was about $920,000 for this one medical event.

These kinds of costs must be spread across the entire society if we are to sustain this level of excellence in medical care. Rich, poor, conservative, liberal or don't care, we are all going to have to pull together on this one. Even those of us who are doing OK in this economy cannot keep this up indefinitely.

JD

Don't let WTF bait you DFW. He can't have a discussion about any kind of spending without running to defense spending. This thread was on health care.

Hell, I hear he gets "defensive" even when talking about his own limited arsenal.

DFWTraveler5, the current bill doesn't cut "half" of Medicare's funding. It's a very small percent that is supposed to be made up by increasing effeciency and cutting provider reimbursements. ? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The "cutting of provider reimbursements" can't continue forever. The doc's I know tell me they are already cut to the bone. Further it isn't a solution. All they do is push those costs on to other patients that can pay (or have insurance companies that can)

What government are you talking about? I've never seen anything approaching efficiency from the boys on Capitol Hill. Originally Posted by John Bull

Yeah, at the risk of beating a dead horse, "they" have no credibility with anyone when it comes to managing anything to come in at plan or realizing savings. Why is this time going to be different?