Obama Care

the worst things our country can do right now are socialize healthcare, or any government controlled healthcare, letting these illegal criminals that they now like to make sound better by calling undocumented workers get citizensship, instead of rounding them up and sending them back at their country of origin's expense, plus fines, and allowing Iran to get anywhere near a nuclear weapon... And the way Obama leading us is right towards those three things which will cripple our way of life, economy and freedoms.

you got if fabricator. You hear people all the time saying how they are on welfare, getting FOOD STAMPS, stop calling it EBT or now SNAP, it is FOOD STAMPS, and they get low income housing and allowances for heat, and the ALWAYS HAVE KIDS, multiple kids, and NO FATHER IN SIGHT!!! they all have obama phones and smoke pot and have no desire to get a job or be anything productive, and worse yet, their kids do the same, and we now have generational welfare, because there is no incentive to get off it, no incentive to have their children not be in the system

That's a big 10-4

Shouldn't health care be a basic human right? If you lose your job and end up getting sick, shouldn't you still be covered? If you are diagnosed with a disease like MS, shouldn't you have access to medication that costs $5K a month...whether you make minimum wage or a million dollars a year?

I would help out any honest hard working person that had a health issue, but the millions that feed on is the issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by ccss71

I would help out any honest hard working person that had a health issue, but the millions that feed on is the issue.

Ohhh ok....so if you lose your job, then you should lose your healthcare then too. We should probably also cut off children and old people.

O wow. This has spiraled into something very interesting... My opinion(just like assholes, everyone has them:-) )

1. Stop caring for and helping illegal immigrants. PERIOD!
2. Want to change the law? Change it to where unless you are a citizen of this country, you cannot have a child here and have it considered a citizen.
3. Just as someone said, STOP LETTING THESE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND HOSPITALS CHARGE WHATEVER THEY WANT.
If the government tried to go in and regulate the healthcare industry, I don't see it sliding through like this ACA did.
4. It is my life, if I don't want to carry insurance for whatever reason, I should not have to. But with that being said, and I thought this went on but apparently it does not, if I don't pay my bills then something should be done to an extent. This goes back to the #3. I seriously believe that if they didn't charge so much for medical care, there would be less people that don't pay.

Again, just opinions. They don't mean a damn thing. I just hope that this country wakes up and sees what it is doing to itself before it falls. This greed that is going on is going to be the end of this country eventually...

What I meant is someone who worked or works I would support. But a lazy jag off no absolutely no

And government should keep there nose out of it.

Quote:

Originally posted by ccss71

What I meant is someone who worked or works I would support. But a lazy jag off no absolutely no

Ok...so lets just give healthcare to people who we think are going to be in work force for what....at least 35 years? So if they're a slacker in school...fuck them. If they work 10 years and then get a disease like cancer...fuck them too. If you're unemployed for more than 6 months...you got it...fuck them too.

My point in all of this is you can't just do what you're saying...its impossible. The only way a national healthcare system works is if everyone gets the same basic minimum service. In theory...if everyone worked, then every man woman and child would pay the same amount...but again...not every man woman and child works. The way the system works is that the working class plays for it.

Grunching:

Quote:

Originally posted by NightCruiser

I really don't see how the government can force people to buy health Insurance. They are forcing us to whether we can afford it or not.

Not really. If you truly cannot afford healthcare and have a need for it Medicaid is still available. Additionally, most states also have subsidies for people who make up to 400% of the poverty level to help lower income people purchase insurance (the states that don't have those subsidies don't have them because their governors, all Republicans) opted not to take them.

And finally, it's not mandated health insurance. It's a small yearly tax that is placed on people who do not purchase health insurance.

But other than being wrong on all those facts and such, you're 100% correct.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

The Middle Class is caught between a rock and a hard place. The poor will get subsidized. The Rich already have top of the line health plans. The upper middle class will scrape by.

I agree that the Middle Class is being squeezed. But that's not because the poors are getting more benefits. It's because the Rich have accrued nearly all the gains the economy has provided over the last couple decades. The Middle Class is being squeezed because the rich are fucking them over, not the poor. That's on a macro basis - it's a much larger problem than just healthcare.

Since the late 90% all the gains have gone to the top 25% of income:



That means the piece of the pie that 80% of Americans are getting has gotten smaller over time:



Again, the only people whose incomes have risen over the last 20 years are the richest 20% or so:



That has to do with things like this:



And this:

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

I had Health Insurance for a long time but they kept going up on my rates until it was unfordable even though I had only used it one time and for a relatively small amount--which I still paid half the bill.

Is it the government's fault that your private insurer kept charging more and more for basically the same service? Probably a little bit, but the whole point of Obamacare/the ACA was to address the 50,000,000 uninsured people in the US, which was a result of the very thing you are talking about. The goal was (sort of) to help people in your situation.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

I know the US health care system is going broke as is.

hahah no.

Health care and higher education are the only two major industries in the US that have had uninterrupted income growth outpacing inflation for the last two decades.

Health care organizations are doing fine, for the most part. Many have merged, creating huge market leverage forcing insurers to pay more for procedures and forcing providers to accept less compensation.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

People get free health care in the emergency rooms because they can't afford or just don't pay the bill.

Yes and no. People get very basic care, according to EMTALA, which forces the hospital to stabilize the patient if they are facing a severe, life-threatening injury. They are not obligated to provide follow-up care, provide various medications, long-term care, etc.

If an uninsured person is hit by a vehicle, they will be stabilized until such time that they are no longer in danger of immediately dying without life-saving care.

If an uninsured person has cancer, and needs chemotherapy, they aren't getting it. If they need medication for their diabetes or Parkinson's disease, or any other chronic condition, they aren't going to get it. If they tear their ACL, they're not getting corrective surgery, and if they have ocular keratitis, they're going to eventually go blind.

Emergency care is not equal to adequate medical care. Harvard estimates there are more than 45,000 people who die every year who would not if they had health insurance. 45,000 people dead people. Every year.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/?_r=0

Quote:

The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance — as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care.

Those lucky poors, and their free healthcare!

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

I read where Insurance companies will add $220 Billion in profits in 5 or 10 years due to Obama care.

Health insurance companies will benefit, to some degree, because of the nature of insurance markets.

People who are at low-risk for needing insurance are typically some of the first to abandon it when money gets tight, while the expensive, high-risk people are the most likely to keep their insurance as long as possible. For health insurers, this means that healthy, young people (who also happen to have worse jobs and less coverage through their employers) are likely to be the first and most numerous to drop health insurance coverage. Unfortunately for insurers, this is the most profitable segment of the insurance market. Old people and people with chronic conditions are more likely to keep their insurance, as they need it, and are thus more costly for insurers.

In order to get insurance companies to stop doing things like recision--in which the insurance company would find some clerical paperwork error as a pretense for dropping coverage of an expensive customer, like someone with cancer or kidney failure or whatever--and forcing them to cover pre-existing conditions (another way the insurance companies kept profits high, by not covering anyone they thought might be too expensive in the future), the Obama administration "negotiated" with insurance companies and said, basically, "If you stop being dicks to all these people who need health insurance, we'll mandate that everyone has to sign up so you'll make up for the losses on the one hand with gains on the other."

Could the administration have done more, and squeezed more profit out of private insurers? Sure. The administration could have threatened them with a Medicare-for-all option, which would cut out private insurers entirely, and likely provide cheaper coverage options for people, but that didn't happen. Remember that chart about about who government responds to the most. It's monied interests, and the insurance industry has an army of excellent lobbyists and basically ended up writing the ACA.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

Medicare is already benefiting from Obama care by changes. The system was adding a lot to the national debt BUT making people pay Insurance companies or the Feds is not the answer in my opinion.

This doesn't make sense to me. You're essentially saying that saving money on Medicare and ensuring more Americans will have health insurance coverage is a bad thing because...government?

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

I don't think they are taking into account peoples bills ie house payments, car payments etc.

No, they're taking into account people's income, which is what determines the sizes of those things like house payments, car payments, etc.

But again, I agree that the middle class is generally getting squeezed in the United States. But it's not Obamacare that's doing the squeezing--Obamacare is a response to the squeezing.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

I don't think the reality of what is happening has sunk into many minds yet. People tend to think Obama care will be ended for some reason.

Those people aren't really big on their American history, are they?

Name the last time a major federal program intended to benefit millions of Americans was repealed. (Hint: it's never happened)

It'll be tweaked around the edges, sure, and perhaps drawn back, as Medicaid and how Aid to Families with Dependent Children was reigned in in the 1990s by changing it to TANF, but in some shape or form increased health insurance coverage will stay around.

Quote:

Originally posted by you

I haven't signed up. They delayed it for businesses for a year . Businesses with a lot of employees were only effected anyway. How many Middle class can afford to spend an extra $6000 + per year?.

Probably not a lot. But again, that's a middle class income stagnation problem more than it is a Obama is screwing the common man problem.

Also, if you can't afford $6000 a year, don't buy insurance. The maximum individual penalty for not purchasing health insurance, by the time everything is fully implemented in 2016, will be $695. That works out to about $50 a month, certainly not bank breaking.

Again, this isn't really a defense of Obamacare, because I think it was poorly negotiated and implemented, but let's be honest about what we're criticizing here.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

The government fines go up astronomically as the years go by for not buying their Insurance.

Astronomical = $695 per year. Uh. I think we disagree on what qualifies as "astronomical."

Plus, there are exemptions:

You may qualify for an exemption from the penalties if:

The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income

You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year

You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low

You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider

You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry

You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare

if your income is less than 133% of the federal poverty level

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

I thought Obama was good for the Country back when he was running for President the first time.

Here's a good rule of thumb for next time: Anyone with enough monetary and business community support to have a legitimate chance at the presidency will not be good for the majority of the country.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

I didn't think he was good enough to get my vote. I just didn't vote in the past 2 elections. If I had known this scam was coming I would have voted anybody but Obama.

And nothing would be different because Obama didn't win by one vote.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

For you foreigners, this country works like this for the middle class--if you get a major illness, you pretty much have to declare bankruptcy whether you have Insurance or not. Not many can afford their part of a heart attack hospital bill which can run $50,000 to $250,000.

No, that only happens if you don't have insurance or are underinsured. A majority of people in the United States have health insurance coverage through their employer, or their spouse/family member's employer:

For Americans ages 18-64:

Percent uninsured at the time of interview: 21.3%

Percent with private insurance at the time of interview: 64.2%

Percent with public health plan coverage at the time of interview: 15.9%

If you're in that 21.3%, of uninsured people, yes, you are severely screwed if you have a heart attack. If you happen to be in the 2/3rds who have insurance, you're not necessarily facing financial ruin.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

We have always paid for those that can't or won't pay.

HAHAHAHAH

That's completely incorrect. You know Medicaid was only passed in 1966?! That was only 14 years before I was born. My mother was born in an era when older people had no health insurance coverage if their employer didn't provide it for them in retirement. And if you want to go back to the pre-New Deal era the single largest group of people in poverty was the elderly. The United States has a long history of not giving a fuck about poor people.

And then there's that whole thing about 49 million people being uninsured in the US as of like 2010.

Hell, you just said (wrongly) that someone in the middle class faces bankruptcy when if they have a heart attack, and now you're saying that, "Hey, we always pay for people who can't pay." Which is it? Either you have to go bankrupt, or someone's paying for you?

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

Part of the bill is paying for those that can't or won't pay.

Dude, get your story straight.

It forces people to pay money they can't afford to pay (according to your statements above), but it pays for people who can't pay. Huh?

The ACA aims to get more Americans covered under some health insurance plan. It uses tax incentives to do that. Under all bills which pay for one thing with taxes on other things, some people will benefit, others will incur more costs. It's up to the voters (lol) and politicians (lol) to try to come to a resolution under which the most people benefit with the fewest harmed, that is amenable to the largest segment of the population possible.

Quote:

Originally posted by NC

Many are now going out of the country for their health care. Just my opinion

Yes, because health care is very expensive in the US, and many people don't have insurance. AND THIS IS WHAT OBAMACARE IS TRYING TO FIX! No, it doesn't do a great job of it, but it's more of an effort than anything we've seen to date.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

Nightcruiser, You are correct. I still don't understand how it's legal to make someone purchase something???

You don't seem to understand how taxes work.

All people without a spouse are taxed according to some formula. Some people with a spouse have some lower level of taxes because that's how the formula works.
All people without children are taxed according to some formula. People with dependent children have some lower level of taxes because that's how the formula works.
All people without homes are taxes according to some formula. People with homes have some lower level of taxes because that's how the formula works.
All people without health insurance are taxed according to some formula. People without health insurance pay some lower level of taxes because that's how the formula works.

Nobody is "forced" to buy insurance, just as nobody is forced to get married, have children, or buy a house.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

Obama is a criminal

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

it's funny how the members of congress & the politicians have EXEMPTED themselves from this plan.....TRUE!!

Congress exempts themselves from a lot of things that the rest of the proles have to follow. Like insider trading rules.

But this one is kind of silly. All Congressional members are provided health insurance through their employer. Nobody in the country who has health insurance through their employer has to worry about the ACA or the taxes levied therein.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

I believe that if they were required to participate in every law they pass, it would slow them way down.

Yes, that's probably right. Although it's sort of silly too, because most politicians are rich, elite, highly-educated people, and many of the people they represent are not those things.

They are required to participate in many laws, but many of those laws levy taxes against rich people and benefit less rich people. Because most lawmakers are only in the rich group, they frequently don't care about those not in their group.

If, for example, a law was passed that would increase taxes for the top 5% of incomes in the US (anyone making >$180,000/yr or so) to benefit the bottom 95% of incomes in the US, forcing politicians (at the national level, anyway) to participate and vote along with their personal intersts would actually lessen the likelihood of those 95% benefiting, because politicians aren't in that group.

Quote:

Originally posted by DOM678

It is my understanding that they are required to switch their insurance and their staffs insurance to obama care.

You know that "Obama care" is just "private health insurance coverage from a private insurer" right?

It's not some program where they shoot you full of tranquilizers, pull out your fingernails with pliers, and give you leukemia.

Quote:

Originally posted by DOM

I personally hate the idea of the government sticking its nose into private lives and business (when it doesn't concern collusion or equal access) and equal access doesn't equate to equal treatment. it means that if I am willing to do the same or pay the same as someone else I should have the access to the same goods or services.

Do you think Medicare is a good policy to provide some level of health insurance coverage to the retired and elderly?

If so, why isn't Medicare "the government sticking its nose into private lives and business?"

Your point about equal access is interesting though. That's sort of what Obamacare is attempting to do: provide equal access to health insurance for all Americans, not just some ever decreasing percentage of people who are covered through their employer or some other private plan. I would think ensuring that all people have access to quality health care would be an equality issue. 45,000 Americans die every year from deaths that could have been prevented if they had had insurance coverage. Nearly 50 million people in the US are uninsured. That seems pretty unequal.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

I don't think you get it.

Rich, coming from the guy who wrote...

Quote:

Originally posted by g14

Obama's goal is to MAKE/FORCE as many people as possible to be dependent on the government for their income/insurance/subsidies that they have to vote for democrats in perpetuity.

I know that's what Hannity and Rush tell you, but that's just not so.

Honestly, if their goal was to force people to be dependent upon the government, why didn't he implement a universal health care policy, like Medicare for All, or the NHS in England, or in Canada or whatever? Why was that option never on the table, even as a negotiating tactic against the health insurance companies? THAT would be a way to make people more dependent upon the government.

The ACA just tells people they have to pay a tax if they don't buy private health insurance. PRIVATE health insurance. Meaning not from the government.

Also, he did a hell of a job bailing out the banks (private businesses) and car industry (private businesses) and hasn't really held anyone accountable for their ruining of the economy in the run-up to 2008. I mean, Obama is just about as corporatist as his Republican foes. His corporate masters just represent different industries.

To think that he's some sort of big government liberal is just ridiculous. It does not match the facts.

Quote:

Originally posted by g14

His next big goal is to get these illegal criminals to become citizens because they mostly voted democrat.

Well, first, that won't happen because there's a ton of Republican opposition to it.

But here's another fun thing about your statement there: Illegal criminals, as you say, or undocumented immigrants, CANNOT VOTE! They absolutely did not vote Democrat because illegal aliens can't vote in US elections. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good racially charged rant.

Quote:

Originally posted by g14

He is trying to destroy the two party system and make it so that democrats can never lose an election.

The Republican party is doing a pretty good job of making sure the Democrats never lose an election all on their own. When your platform represents rich, white, elite, males for the most part, and that demographic is getting smaller and smaller, don't be surprised when you start losing elections.

By the way, you know the first president who was opposed to the two-party system? George Washington. From his Farewell Address:

Quote:

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Quote:

Originally posted by G14

Our country will also be broke, lazy and unsafe, but that doesn't matter, only elections matter. He hardly has our best concerns in mind.

The country is not broke. It has a deficit (which has been decreasing the last few years), and a large national debt, but that doesn't really matter much, as a currency-issuing government can never involuntarily default on its debts.

The country is not lazy. Americans are as productive as they've ever been. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:


And it is not unsafe. People in the US (and around the world) are safer today than they have been at any point in human history.







And the world:



So, aside from everything you said, you're 100% correct.

Quote:

Originally posted by G14

At best he is anti-capitalism, but he might just be anti-American....

lol. Obama is a corporatist through and through. Obamacare, the topic that started this whole thread, is actually a pro-health insurance industry policy!

You couldn't be less accurate if you tried.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

oh and big problem #3 is giving health care to illegals. The whole you cant turn anyone away, is bullshit and needs to go I dont care if the get shot or are in labor, if you don't live here legally you don't get to get treated here. And what are they supposed to do???? How about not being a criminal, their existence in our country is a crime, why do we reward them for it with free care?

You seem like a nice guy.

What if the person is 17 or 18, and was brought to this country when they were a little child by their parents. Are the sins of the parents to be visited upon the child? I know that's what Exodus calls for, but I'd like to think we're more compassionate than the Old Testament version of God. That one bro who comes along in the New Testament seems like he'd be cool with offering health care to people who can't pay for it, in fact.

But back to modern times, and more disturbingly, why do you value the lives of Americans more than you value the lives of people born on the other side of some imaginary line? We're all people, and we should treat each other as such.

very well said whiteviper!!!!!

of coure you missed the point, the country WILL BECOME broke, Lazy and unsafe because of Obama, HOW??? Broke, because Obabmcare is impossible to work. IT can never work, beacuse it relies on healthy young people overpaying for insurance to subsidize sick and old people who couldnt get insurance cause of their age or condition it was too expensive to insure them, so we are FORCING everyone to get insurance to SPREAD THE COSTS!!!! This is socialism......and it will bankrupt us because you are insuring the most expensive people who wouldn't have been covered which is expensive, there is the becoming broke, caring for and providing care for those who are sick and are too expensive to be caring for.....

WILL BECOME LAZY, NOT ARE LAZY, and those statistics are productivity OF WORKERS!!! The obama people ARE NOT WORKING THEY ARE ON WELFARE!!!!! this means they arent in those stiatistics. Post the percentage of people on FOOD STAMPS, don't ever call it EBT, or SNAP, it is FOOD STAMPS!!!. These people never come out of welfare they stay in the system forever and more and more people are relying to government for their income, it is not something like 49%...

UNSAFE.... He is trying to take money away from national defense, and trying to negotiate with the one country you can NEVER EVER EVER negotiate with, the worst, most evil country in the entire world, IRAN!!! If they get nuclear weapons, which they are on pace to in the next 18-24 months, the entire world is not safe from them.....

so because a parent commits a crime, which includes transporting a criminal who is the baby, we should reward them with citizenship, or even worse, allow them to stay here as the ciminals they are and not pay any taxes and likely the money they do make goes back to mexico or wherever they are from and takes money out of our economy. And I am not saying our life is necessarily more valuable, but it actually is, because of our future earnings, so in fact our lives are more valuable then theirs.... but that is besides they point, we couldnt go to china and have kids for free or work without paying taxes, could we??? Every service they get drives up the price for the tax paying citizens... and it is not right... Do you think a criminal should have the same rights as a law abiding citizen??? And since I have seen this argument many times before, their existence in our country is a crime, your obama bought and paid for media can try and change the language like they love to do to make people ignore facts, but THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS WHICH IS A CRIME FOR BEING HERE!!! EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN IS A CRIMINAL BY EXISTING HERE!!!!! It isnt an undocumented worker, only a moron would say or believe that, but they also call it planned parenthood, not planned abortion, or family planning not abortion planning, or they call the tea party "extremists" instead of logival people who want to preserve our constitution, the obama media machine loves to change the words to fool the morons, the problem is they are everywhere..... how else would he have won re-election???? Fool me once.....

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

it doesnt attack the reason why healthcare here is so expensive. The two biggest problems are the lawyers suing everyone for everything. Every operation comes with a risk and if something goes wrong you shouldnt get to sue for millions, even if someone dies, that is always a risk for any procedure.

Wrong again!

In 2003, Texas passed tort reform, capping all non-economic damage awards resulting from medical malpractice at $250,000

What's happened since then?

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/meme-busting-tort-reform-cost-control-2/



Hey, look, Texas' costs have risen and fallen in lockstep with national costs, despite their tort reform. That's weird, if addressing lawsuits was supposed to provide increased savings.

You know why the change is imperceptible? It's because defensive medicine costs are an exceptionally small piece of the costs of medicine:

Quote:

Originally posted by game13

Every operation comes with a risk and if something goes wrong you shouldnt get to sue for millions, even if someone dies, that is always a risk for any procedure.

Sigh.

You don't understand how medical malpractice lawsuits work either, do you?

You cannot sue a physician for a bad result. You can only sue for a bad result that was brought about by negligence of the physician. You need to find other physicians who are willing to testify that the behavior of the treating physician did not meet acceptable treatment standards. There have been studies done on this. Yes, there are some invalid claims brought against physicians. But larger than that number is the number of valid claims that are never brought against health care providers.

Read this: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/how-malpractice-reform-is-blown-way-out-of-proportion/

An excerpt:

What’s more: malpractice claims are incredibly uncommon. From the universe of people who could bring valid complaints of negligence, only two percent do; only a fraction of those result in payment, often through settlement. The chart below is adapted from a legal casebook:



Yes, the malpractice system is a mess. No, fixing it will not result in significant cost savings to the health care industry.

Quote:

Originally posted by g12

Problem 2 is that we have a super aging population and they all want to be in nursing homes and assisted living which are 10's of thousands of dollars a month. it isnt like in the old days when grandma or grandpa would just stay with one of the kids and pass away in a bedroom. now everyone lives forever, they all get cancer, we give them chemo even though they will still die in 2 years and then no one is left to pay the bills, so they charge everyone else more to make up for it.

I could break this down too, but I mean you can actually look this stuff up on your own. There's actually a lot of good scholarship on why things cost so much in the US, and it's basically that we spend more for everything. Every procedure, test, blood draw, prescription, stitch, etc. costs more in the US than it does in the rest of the developed world. We're not sicker than other countries. We don't use more services than other countries. We're don't smoke more. It's just that the United States pays more for everything than anyone else.

And do you know why we pay more? Because most of those countries have enormous leverage over the providers (physicians, nurses, hospitals), pharma companies, medical device companies, suppliers, etc., because they pool their national health care services when negotiating with those entities. It's called monopsony, which is an economic term that describes a situation in which there is ONE BUYER for services, among many providers.

A simple example. A small village gets all their apples from two orchards. There are no other orchards in the land. If the villagers each go to the orchards to purchase the apples they're going to pay some per-apple price. If, however, the villagers get together and combine their purchasing power, and go to the orchards as a whole group, they can negotiate a significant discount. This is because they'll say to the owners of the orchards: "We have come together to buy all the apples for the village. We require X number of apples, and will buy all of our apples from the Orchard owner with the lowest priced apples." The orchard owners now have a problem. They have to offer significant discounts because if they don't, that buyer will get what they need from the other orchard, and their entire crop will go to waste. So they both offer significantly lower prices for apples than they would if each villager came to them and asked the individual price. It's all about pricing power.

WalMart operates on a similar model - they buy so many products for their stores that a company that they can tell their suppliers, "We need you to lower your costs X%" and their choice is to either lower their costs that much or lose out on reaching hundreds of millions of customers.

The US health care system doesn't operate that way. Others do.

Anyway, you can read up on this stuff before making more wrong statements. There are lots of great resources out there. Like this: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/May/1595_Squires_explaining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf Or this series (links to the rest of the series are at the end of the first post here: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-us-health-care-system-so-expensive-introduction/

Hell, just watch THIS VIDEO, which is less than 8 minutes long, that does a pretty good quick synopsis.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

actually I do get it, he is trying to turn out country into a socialist state where so many people rely on the government for their healthcare, paychecks and subsidies that his party will never get voted out... It is that simple... All about the votes and keeping the big government that is crippling our country....

Lol. I guess I couldn't resist checking back. I don't think the people who call Obama a socialist have a clue.

Not to mention, people aren't relying in the government to get their healthcare now the ACA is in effect - feel free to get your private insurance just like normal. Or through an employer if that's an option, just as it was before.

There is no support for your bald allegation that this "big government" is crippling the economy. The may times has an interesting read earlier this week comparing Minnesota and Wisconsin and the routes their respective economies have gone since Minnesota went with more of a "big" government and Wisconsin went with more "conservative." Minnesota is on the rise, Wisconsin is not. Of course, there are so many factors that go into an economic analysis that it doesn't really work on a forum like this. But bat does throw a wrench into your blanket (and still crazy) statement that a big government kills the economy. The states with scaled back governments that have economies growing faster than the national average typically are being fueled by the energy sector (e.g., North Dakota, Texas), which makes it hard to treat them as being typical.

Oh, and Obama and his big government is crippling the economy as you say, despite that the US hasn't officially in the Great Recession since 2009. I think it's absurdly shallow to try to pin economic performance of a country on a president, but if we are going that route, shit hit the fan with GWB, not Obama.

of course, YOU dont get it.. The economy gets better in the SHORT RUN when you get big government because they can take on debt to add jobs and create economic activity, that is less productive than private business, so of course short term it makes the economy better, but it relies on DEBT, which cripples the economy LONG TERM

And how much DEBT did each president ADD?????? Obama has added more DEBT THAT EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, I would say THAT is shit hitting the fan. That is not even fathomable by any reasonable person... how can one president raise the debt more in 5 years than every single president has in the entire history of our country??? And it was all on him, no trying to do the blame bush for the wars crap, no intelligent person believes that media nonsense.....