Results 1 to 20 of 111
Thread: Affordable health care = hitler
01-10-2013, 12:06 PM #1
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
Affordable health care = hitler
Really? Is that "Obamacare" thing so horrible that it merits blackmailing the whole country? Will it ban guns or introduce communism, perhaps?
Can someone outline to me the Republican position sensibly? I believe in trying to reach out to all sides of a debate, but I am having a very hard time not dismissing them as lunatics outright.
01-10-2013, 12:17 PM #2
01-10-2013, 12:23 PM #3
Republicans are not any more "muwhaha evil" than the Democrats, a chunk of the voters (not necessary the population, but the voters) are agreeable to "I'm fine screw everyone else" attitudes. People don't like to think about themselves getting fired and falling sick in the same month and health insurance failing to cover the gaps.
They ignore the issue, but if their tax bill, grosseries or (gods forbid) gas price goes up? That they feel straight away.
Its rational if you are mentally myopic.
01-10-2013, 12:31 PM #4
You know I've got a rep for being a right wing fascist but even I support public healthcare unconditionally. It baffles me that people could rally against something so goddamn fundamental. Then again growing up in Australia I've never known anything different...Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
01-10-2013, 12:33 PM #5
01-10-2013, 12:37 PM #6
Of all the things to draw a line in the sand on relatively mild reforms to a healthcare system is a frankly bizarre one. I simply don't get it.
01-10-2013, 12:38 PM #7
01-10-2013, 12:48 PM #8
Well Republicans seem to be if not the foremost then at least the loudest proponents of "I got mine" politics. I understand if not everyone can or wants to save everyone in the world, but if you're living in the richest country on the planet yet are content to see people around you suffer so that you can profit you're pretty darn evil as far as I'm concerned.
01-10-2013, 12:51 PM #9
and its ironic somehow since the us has contributed to so many sensible health systems around the world. seriously.
01-10-2013, 01:11 PM #10
The result of roughly a hundred years of various Red Scares and Cold War propaganda and thus voicing any sort of left-leaning thoughts has become a taboo. What you now have is effectively a one party system with two right wings and no way out of it.
If denying your fellow man access to affordable healthcare is not evil then I don't know what is.to wound the autumnal city.
01-10-2013, 01:28 PM #11
The main issue is that, between both sides, "Obamacare" has become the defining policy of this president (fuck his foreign policy and things like leaving people to die and what not, THIS is important. Apparently...). Republicans want to destroy him. Democrats want to praise him. Neither cares about the long-term benefit of the country.
Originally, during the current round of idiocy, Republicans wanted to basically kill the entire plan. Now, there IS a rational argument there (not necessarily what they were doing): The plan is very expensive, it probably isn't sustainable in its current form with the current economy and government, and we should probably find a way to save money somewhere (and honestly, cutting the thing nobody is using yet is probably better, voter-wise, than cutting the things they ARE using). Democrats said "Fuck that shit", and Republicans switched to "let's just delay it". Of course, "let's just delay it" is basically the same as "let's kill it", so Democrats are also saying "fuck that shit".
Personally, I think what we need is an actual reform of the system. I DEFINITELY would prefer a public system, but maybe not necessarily this one (I honestly don't know enough about it since neither side wants to actually inform the public and a significant portion of the bill was just tacked on bullshit). And in its current form, I don't think the US government can sustain this. What we NEED is to "figure out why" hospitals and pharmaceutical companies charge so much for things that cost a few bucks, at the most (we already know why: Lawsuits and an excuse to raise profit margins. But it is the government, they need to form a committee to investigate this using a few billion dollars...) and fix that.
But that won't happen because it would involve either side thinking about the people they "serve" rather than their legacies and political careers.Steam: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.
01-10-2013, 01:36 PM #12
01-10-2013, 01:52 PM #13
I'm not five years old. You don't need to camera cut with every sentence to keep my attention, if anything you're distracting me from what you're saying since every time you cut camera the audio changes. I lost track of whatever point he was trying to make because he refuses to stop jumping around.
01-10-2013, 02:00 PM #14
The brothers Green certainly are a bouncy bunch. Just listen to the audio if you find it that distracting, there's nothing in the video you need to see to get the information.
01-10-2013, 02:05 PM #15
01-10-2013, 02:16 PM #16
As for why a bottle of sodium chloride 0.9% marketed as Normal Saline costs a few dollars but the same sterile product marked 'not fit for medical use' costs somewhere around "jack shit"... well, apart from 'intended for medical use' standards, I don't really know. Then you can get the same pair of forceps but with a surgical label and the cost jumps even higher (presumably because... I don't know, designed for use with autoclaves? No idea).
Hank's video seems over-simplified in some cases. Medications like Lipitor and many other meds are cheap here (and I presume in NZ too) due to pharmaceutical benefits schemes in place by the government to make them much more affordable. If your meds aren't on the scheme, it still costs a fortune. Yes the government can decide what brand to choose, but the end user's cost is ultimately cheap because it's subsidised. Obesity and other chronic lifestyle conditions are a contributor to rising healthcare demand (and thus cost), but then again so is the fact that we're all living longer in the west - but it's hard to put a price on that. I don't really know if it's as simple as the US not haggling to get the best price, but over here healthcare costs aren't insignificant. The public hospitals provide an excellent standard of clinical care, but they often fall back on minimal standards that pass best practice standards. It's not unsafe but it's not the best you can do - because the 'best' costs a fortune.
For example when I was on a plastics ward the standard dressing was simple gauze packed into wounds and irrigated with normal saline or chlorhexadine in some cases. "Special" dressings like bactigras or alginates were uncommon and needed a good rationale for use. In a private hospital they'd shove the best they could find in there because screw it, you're paying for it.Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
01-10-2013, 02:29 PM #17
As a demonstration I've typed this sentence outin jarring font and colours. It should prove a little more difficult to read than normal text.
Really it's just a peeve of mine when commentators do this.
01-10-2013, 02:33 PM #18
Last edited by Skalpadda; 01-10-2013 at 02:35 PM.
01-10-2013, 02:54 PM #19
the Republican National Committee's outline you find non-sensible?
1. INCREASES HEALTH CARE COSTS
Medicare’s Chief Actuary Richard Foster Said ObamaCare Won’t Keep Costs Down. “The landmark legislation probably won’t hold costs down, and it won’t let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.” (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, “Medicare Offical Doubts Health Care Law Savings,” The Associated Press,1/26/11)
Foster Was Asked To Respond True Or False In Regards To The Claim That ObamaCare Will Bring Down Health Care Costs. “Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.” (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, “Medicare Offical Doubts Health Care Law Savings,” The Associated Press,1/26/11)
“On The Costs Issue, ‘I Would Say False, More So Than True,’ Foster Responded.” (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, “Medicare Offical Doubts Health Care Law Savings,” The Associated Press,1/26/11)
CMS Says Health Care Spending Will Increase More Than Before ObamaCare Was Passed. “In February, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projected that overall national health spending would increase an average of 6.1% a year over the next decade. The center’s economists recalculated the numbers in light of the health bill and now project that the increase will average 6.3% a year, according to a report in the journal Health Affairs. Total U.S. health spending will reach $4.6 trillion by 2019, accounting for nearly one of every five U.S. dollars spent, the report says.” (Janet Adamy, “Health Outlays Still Seen Rising,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/9/10)
“U.S. Health Spending Is Projected To Rise 9.2% In 2014, Up From The 6.6% Projected Before The Law Took Effect.” (Janet Adamy, “Health Outlays Still Seen Rising,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/9/10)
2. CAUSES INSURANCE PREMIUMS TO RISE
Health Insurers Will Need To Increase Premiums Between 1% And 9% As A Result Of ObamaCare. “Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections. Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.” (Janet Adamy, “Health Insurers Plan Hikes,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/8/10)
Premiums For Families Will Increase By $2,100 As A Result Of ObamaCare. “Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law.” (Douglas W. Elmendorf, CBO Director, Letter To Senator Evan Bayh, 11/30/09)
Premiums Plus Out-Of-Pocket Costs Are Expected To Increase By 12.4 Percent In 2011. “In 2011, the combined average of premium and out-of-pocket costs for health care coverage for an employee is projected to climb to $4,386, according to an annual study by Hewitt Associates to be released this week. That’s a 12.4 percent increase, or $486, over this year.” (Bruce Jaspen, “Higher Health Care Bills Ahead,” Chicago Tribune, 9/27/10)
3. HURTS QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE
Doctor Shortage Will Worsen Because Of ObamaCare, Leading To “More-Limited Access To Health Care And Longer Wait Times For Patients.” “The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors. Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges….The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. … A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.” (Suzanne Sataline & Shirley Wang, “Medical Schools Can’t Keep Up,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/12/10)
Increased Demand From ObamaCare Will Lead To Rising Costs For Families And Doctors Refusing Patients. “However, the report raises several warnings about the impact of healthcare reform. Foster states, ‘The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health resources and could lead to price increases, cost shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.’” (Bob Cusack, “Government Report: New Healthcare Reform Law Could Lead To Higher Prices, Employers Dropping Coverage,” The Hill, 4/22/10)
ObamaCare May Increase Crowding At ERs. “Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can’t find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation’s new health law. That might come as a surprise to those who thought getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease ER crowding. It would seem these patients would be able to get routine health care by visiting a doctor’s office, as most of the insured do.” (Carla K. Johnson, “Health Overhaul May Mean Longer ER Waits, Crowding?” The Associated Press, 7/2/10)
Increase In Medicaid Patients Will “Put Even More Pressure On The Strained Network Of Medicaid Providers.” “The influx of new patients is likely to put even more pressure on the strained network of Medicaid providers. Many of the new patients are likely to be in their 50s and early 60s, with complex medical problems, including mental health issues, said Peter J. Cunningham, senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change.” (Roni Caryn Rabin, “With Expanded Coverage For The Poor, Fears Of A Big Headache,” The New York Times, 4/26/10)
4. NEARLY $570 BILLION IN TAX HIKES
Obama Pays For His Government Takeover Of Health Care With Nearly $570 Billion In Job-Destroying Taxes On Small Businesses, Investments And Innovation. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Budget Office, 3/20/10; “Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4872: JCX-17-10,” Joint Committee On Taxation, 3/20/10)
“About One-Third Of Employers Subject To Major Requirements Of The New Health Care Law May Face Tax Penalties Because They Offer Health Insurance That Could Be Considered Unaffordable To Some Employees, A New Study Says.” (Robert Pear, “Study Points to Health Law’s Penalties,” The New York Times, 5/23/10)
“If An Employer With 50 Full-Time Employees Offers Coverage And 10 Of Those Workers Receive Premium Credits, Or Subsidies, The Employer Would Face A Penalty Of $30,000. If 30 Workers Receive Subsidies, The Penalty Would Be $40,000.” (Robert Pear, “Study Points to Health Law’s Penalties,” The New York Times, 5/23/10)
5. ADDS OVER $500 BILLION TO THE DEBT
The Associated Press: “The Idea That Obama’s Health Care Law Saves Money For The Government Is Based On Assumptions That Are Arguable, At Best.” (Calvin Woodward, “Fact Check: Obama Ledger Out Of Balance,” The Associated Press, 1/25/11)
ObamaCare’s Savings Claims Are “Unrealistic.” “To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office’s analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.” (Calvin Woodward, “Fact Check: Obama Ledger Out Of Balance,” The Associated Press, 1/25/11)
Washington Post Editorial Board Says The Obama-Reid-Pelosi Bill Pretends To Be Budget Neutral Because Of “A Fiscal Sleight Of Hand.” “First off, $247 billion — the 10-year cost of the fix — is one whopper of a ‘discrepancy.’ … President Obama has vowed that health reform will not add a single dime to the deficit — but he is seemingly unfazed about adding more than a quarter-trillion dollars to the deficit by changing the Medicare reimbursement formula without finding a way to pay for it. … This latest maneuver only heightens the fiscal irresponsibility of what already was a fiscal sleight of hand.” (Editorial, “2.47 Trillion Dimes,” The Washington Post, 10/19/09)
Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin: Without “Gimmicks And Budgetary Games,” The Health Care Reform Legislation Increases Deficits By $562 Billion. “In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.” (Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Op-Ed, “The Real Arithmetic Of Health Care Reform,” The New York Times, 3/21/10)
Which Includes $114 Billion To Implement ObamaCare. “Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.” (Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Op-Ed, “The Real Arithmetic Of Health Care Reform,” The New York Times, 3/21/10)
Last edited by Tritagonist; 01-10-2013 at 03:01 PM. Reason: Formatting of the quote."He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~ Luke 4:18
01-10-2013, 03:10 PM #20
I'll counter with this article. Two points though:
- The fact that they spend a lot on 'marketing' doesn't mean that R&D plus pharmacovigilance isn't expensive
- Even if their R&D budget it less, that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't suffer when it leads nowhere or ends up making your testicles rupture.
- 'Marketing' can include issuing samples and materials to doctors... and at least over here that generally means they toss those free samples at their patients. At least most GPs I know of here are liberal with their free samples.Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.