What will happen when Obamacare starts running out of money?

[Little-Acorn]

Well, I finally got the poll in.

Have you ever seen a large government program that DIDN'T start running out of money?

When it does, what will be the government's response? Keep in mind that, by then, most private health care providers will have gone out of business, unable to compete with taxpayer-subsidized Govt health care and still keep up with malpractice insurance (even those who have never had a claim), etc.

You can make multiple choices in the poll above.

 

[Pandora]

I agree with all but the last one, even that President George W. Bush will be blamed

The two biggest things are the taxes will be raised on everyone and the quality of health care will have to go down.

Once in this, I am not sure there is any way out. If we could get out, we would have been out of the SS program by now since every young person paying into it today knows they will never see a return.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

As I said in another post, we already have socialized medicine with Medicaid and Medicare. They're going bankrupt and were poorly managed. What leads us to think this will be any different? It's not that the cost of care has gone up as much as they never thought this many people were going to live this long and they never took into account the illegal alien problem.

The point that few people recognize is the degeneration of the quality of the doctors. The best and brightest will stop going to medical school and will choose other careers. Ever notice how hard it is to see a doctor but you can get to see the PA.

 

[PLC1]

Every other nation in the world has universal health care, and all of them, every last one, pays far less than we do.

Far, far less.

Either we'll reform our health care system now, or do it later when it has become even worse.

Either we will do it through reasoned debate and dialogue, or through fearmongering, hype, and outright lies.

We can't afford to do nothing. The system will run out of money if we don't act soon. If we don't act with pragmatism and prudence, which at this point seems pretty unlikely that we will, then we'll run out of money anyway.

It's time to debate what is actually being proposed, not the nonsense that is being bandied about by insurance company lobbyists.

And no, the House bill is not perfect, far from it. At the moment, it is not "Obamacare", either, but the House of Representatives proposal that has yet to be voted on.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Will this shock/surprise you he'll respond as his former president taught all of us so effectively to do...summon all of the elected back to the 'bee hive' and generate another 'STIMULUS PACKAGE'

Wasn't that the GOP blue print plan, you do remember that right!!!

 

[BigRob]

If the program runs out of money, we will just continue to deficit spend into oblivion.

 

[asur]

PLC1 wrote -

We can't afford to do nothing.

Actually we can't afford to pay for Obama's plan.
We can better afford to do nothing than Obama's plan.

Taxing the US citizen more so that illegals can get free healthcare isn't the answer
either, it's just the Democratic plan to socialize and win votes.

 

[PLC1]

PLC1 wrote -

Actually we can't afford to pay for Obama's plan.
We can better afford to do nothing than Obama's plan.

Taxing the US citizen more so that illegals can get free healthcare isn't the answer
either, it's just the Democratic plan to socialize and win votes.

Ah, so many misconceptions, so little time.

There is no "Obama's plan." There is a bill pending before the House of Representatives, that's all. No plan has been made, at least not yet.

Obama didn't write the plan. The president does not write legislation in this country.

We're paying for illegals to get free health care now, and doing it in the most costly way possible, through the emergency room.

No one is even suggesting that the government run health care. There is no one advocating "socialized medicine" in this nation.

OK, that will do for a start.

 

[PLC1]

It seems the Brits generally like their system, or at least are not willing to junk it in favor of a US style system (or lack of system):

It isn't perfect but it's ours: Britons defend public health care after US attacks

Britons love to mock their National Health Service - just don't let anyone else poke fun at it.

They particularly resent the British universal health care system being used as a punching bag in the battle against President Barack Obama's proposed reforms.

The superheated debate broadened this week to include renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, a British icon who suffers from motor neurone disease. A U.S. newspaper wrote that under the British system Hawking would be allowed to die - an assertion that Hawking said was absurd.

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking said, joining the ranks of those praising Britain's system.

But even those who complain about the NHS say they want it to be improved, not dismantled or transformed into a U.S.-style, profit-oriented system.

 

[r0beph]

Ah, so many misconceptions, so little time.

There is no "Obama's plan." There is a bill pending before the House of Representatives, that's all. No plan has been made, at least not yet.

Obama didn't write the plan. The president does not write legislation in this country.

We're paying for illegals to get free health care now, and doing it in the most costly way possible, through the emergency room.

This. Also, another thing people don't often realize of the impoverished and illegal immigrants. Prophylactic medicine, eg. keeping people from getting sick to begin with, is a necessary function of health care. Not even considering the lessening of the cost of care when a person is not in need of expensive medicines and long term treatment, but the virulence of many diseases. Let's look at tuberculosis. One case of pulmonary TB without complications costs $3,892 USD. When complications exist you look at an average cost of $17,952 USD[1]. Untreated, pulmonary TB will always result in a complicated scenario. The problem arises with the cost of treatment at the current rate is so immense, that many put off treatment (or even diagnosis since the very cost of visiting a doctor is prohibitive to the impoverished and uninsured.) Once they're to the point of severe dehabilition and require treatment to live (which is quite costly at the avg of 17,952 USD) they will be placed in the hospital (and guess who pays for that now...it's us) for long term treatment of complications and primary. Now what else I've failed to mention is that TB is easily passed on to others. Some of the main vector points for contraction are co-workers, live in family and roomates. These people have constant contact with you and will most assuredly catch it if you have a prolonged case that has yet to be treated. The virulence is quite high and the spread is exponential. So one unknown case of TB over the course of a year could be the patient zero for upwards of 1000s of cases. Now, had this person not been concerned with cost when he went to visit the doctor for that nasty cough and lack of appetite he had, they may have diagnosed it before he had a chance to spread it saving us not just appx $14,000 for his extended treatment, but the various 3000+- / 17,000+- treatments for all the others who were exposed. Sure some will have insurance, but the majority of US cities have TB clinics at their local county health depts as TB statistics and care are cataloged by the state due to CDC requirements, thus most treatment of TB occurs there, even for the insured.

Now, TB is just one of thousands of diseases that could be prevented from spreading by cheap prophylactic care. Cheaper care than we're already paying for out of hospital subsidies using our tax dollars for health care to the impoverished and uninsured. "U.S. health care spending is projected to approach $2.4 trillion in 2008; a large share will be paid by government outlays and tax subsidies.
"[2] This amounts to a total of 56.1% of the current healthcare being subsidized by the government (ahem, our tax dollars).[3] That is a whopping $1.4 trillion already being spent on healthcare. So where, pray tell will we get ALL that money needed for the public option, a public option that has commonly been portrayed as "too expensive" because it will cost $1.3 trillion by 2019 (still 100 billion less than the current subsidies paid out to the hospitals, funny isn't it?) . I bet it doesn't take even an idiot a moment to figure that simple answer out. Not to mention the reduction of cost found by early diagnosis of many treatable diseases, since most disease cost-decrease the earlier they are diagnosed. When it is free to go get a check up when you have some funky ill going on and you find out about some serious illness you may not have found out about otherwise, it may save more lives and cost less in the process.

[1] - http://www.medigraphic.com/ingles/i-htms/i-iner/i-in2003/i-in03-4/im-in034d.htm (in spanish)

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...rs.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18664527 (may need university or paid login to see beyond the abstract, [3] cites many of the statistics within the research paper)

[3] http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/43/17/17

 

[Andy]

Will this shock/surprise you he'll respond as his former president taught all of us so effectively to do...summon all of the elected back to the 'bee hive' and generate another 'STIMULUS PACKAGE'

Wasn't that the GOP blue print plan, you do remember that right!!!

It might have been a GOP blue print, but origin is rather irrelevant to whether it's a good idea, isn't it?

 

[Andy]

It seems the Brits generally like their system, or at least are not willing to junk it in favor of a US style system (or lack of system):

It isn't perfect but it's ours: Britons defend public health care after US attacks

Here's the problem. The issues they are facing are systemic to a government run plan. Every government run health care system, in every country around the world, all faces the same exact problems. Even government run health care INSIDE the US, faces the exact same problems.

There are only two specific ways in which you can not have the systemic problems to a government run health care system. First, you can live in a dream world for awhile where the government simply spends as much as is required to pay for the system. This works until the money runs out, which happens when they can't raise taxes anymore, or they print money non-stop until the currency is completely worthless.

The only other option is to not have that system. The common British citizen may not understand basic economic, and really think their system is good, but just needs "fixed". That doesn't change the fact it will never be fixed for as long as government controls it. That's all there is too it.

This is exactly what happened in the UK. When the program started, there was enough money to pay for it. But as it went on, the money ran out, and taxes started rising. Now the tax freedom day in the UK is June 25th I believe. Ours is April 13th. They work an entire two months and a week longer than we do, just for taxes.

Yet it still isn't enough. If you remember back in 2002 or 2003 or so, Blair tried to raise fuel duties (taxes) specifically in order to help rebuild the health care system. Perhaps you remember the farmer strikes in which farmers drove their tractors and farm equipment right to down town London and blocked off streets, shutting down half the city for business.

So the current problems, and postal code lottery, is the natural result of no money and a refusal to accept more taxes. It is systemic to all government run health care systems. The only way to avoid systemic problems is.... to change the system. Yeah the British public may not want to change, but if they want a fix, they've got to change. There's no alternative.

 

[PLC1]

Here's the problem. The issues they are facing are systemic to a government run plan. Every government run health care system, in every country around the world, all faces the same exact problems. Even government run health care INSIDE the US, faces the exact same problems.

There are only two specific ways in which you can not have the systemic problems to a government run health care system. First, you can live in a dream world for awhile where the government simply spends as much as is required to pay for the system. This works until the money runs out, which happens when they can't raise taxes anymore, or they print money non-stop until the currency is completely worthless.

The only other option is to not have that system. The common British citizen may not understand basic economic, and really think their system is good, but just needs "fixed". That doesn't change the fact it will never be fixed for as long as government controls it. That's all there is too it.

This is exactly what happened in the UK. When the program started, there was enough money to pay for it. But as it went on, the money ran out, and taxes started rising. Now the tax freedom day in the UK is June 25th I believe. Ours is April 13th. They work an entire two months and a week longer than we do, just for taxes.

Yet it still isn't enough. If you remember back in 2002 or 2003 or so, Blair tried to raise fuel duties (taxes) specifically in order to help rebuild the health care system. Perhaps you remember the farmer strikes in which farmers drove their tractors and farm equipment right to down town London and blocked off streets, shutting down half the city for business.

So the current problems, and postal code lottery, is the natural result of no money and a refusal to accept more taxes. It is systemic to all government run health care systems. The only way to avoid systemic problems is.... to change the system. Yeah the British public may not want to change, but if they want a fix, they've got to change. There's no alternative.

And yet, there still is that elephant in the room you keep ignoring:

Every nation on Earth that has a universal coverage health care system pays significantly less than we do here in the US, every single one, no exceptions.

So, who has runaway medical care costs?

 

[r0beph]

And yet, there still is that elephant in the room you keep ignoring:

Every nation on Earth that has a universal coverage health care system pays significantly less than we do here in the US, every single one, no exceptions.

So, who has runaway medical care costs?

Isn't it also amusing that he says that most British citizens don't understand the economy of their health care, therefor they think it is good, yet he himself DOES understand it. I'm sure those british citizens do understand what it costs them and likely better than Andy does, but I also bet they realize the care is much better than they could be getting (as they glance across the pond at the amazing health care we receive in America)

 

[Dr.Who]

Every other nation in the world has universal health care, and all of them, every last one, pays far less than we do.

Not every other nation. You must have meant to say every other [insert qualifier here] nation.

France is one of the few that actually has a system that offers quality care. But do they really pay less. In a socialist society the cost of things gets very mucked up and mixed up. there are lots of ways that health care costs get paid for in ways that people don't even know about.

As just one example, in France when a person wants to be a doctor they get their tuition paid for. That is an expense that government pays for but is not included in the stats on how much health care costs. Here in the states the doctor charges patients for the cost of his past schooling. It does get included in the stats on the cost of health care.

If we want to compare apples to apples we need to do a good job of figuring out how much is actually paid.

France does not actually pay less when ALL things are considered. considering unemployment and other hits to the economy they might even pay a whole lot more. And just what kind of a price tag are you going to attache to lost freedom?