What will happen when Obamacare starts running out of money?

[Dr.Who]

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

You are going to loose a lot of credibility if you say things like that without explaining yourself.

 

[PLC1]

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?

OK., the qualifier is every other advanced/industrialized/non third world nation has universal medical coverage, and they all pay a lot less than we do, both per capita and as a percentage of GDP. Of course, we do have the option of joining the third world.

I'm not so sure about your France example. Theirs is one of the least expensive. Even if there are some expenses not counted, such as medical school tuition, it is hard to see how their expenses could be greater than ours. I really don't think you have any stats to back that one up.

As for socialized medicine, that would mean that the government would be running health care, hospitals would be government run, doctors would work for the government. No one is suggesting that. The only ones using the term "socialized medicine" are the ones who don't want to reform health care.

As for lost freedom, just what freedoms are lost if we have a universal care medical plan? The freedom to go without insurance, and stick the rest of us with the bill when something happens and they have to go to the hospital?

 

[Dr.Who]

OK., the qualifier is every other advanced/industrialized/non third world nation has universal medical coverage, and they all pay a lot less than we do, both per capita and as a percentage of GDP. Of course, we do have the option of joining the third world.

Why would we join the 3rd. We already have what many call the best system in the world except for the WHO.

I'm not so sure about your France example. Theirs is one of the least expensive. Even if there are some expenses not counted, such as medical school tuition, it is hard to see how their expenses could be greater than ours. I really don't think you have any stats to back that one up.

It seems pretty hard to separate what is paid directly in premiums and what is paid in taxes. So lets not separate them: Find the average income of a country, subtract what they pay in taxes and in health insurance premiums and call the remainder "money they are left to enjoy their life with"

Now will France be better off than the US?

As for socialized medicine, that would mean that the government would be running health care, hospitals would be government run, doctors would work for the government. No one is suggesting that. The only ones using the term "socialized medicine" are the ones who don't want to reform health care.

Those parts are stripped from the bill now, but did you miss how the bill was going to make a panel that decided what treatment everyone could get and what private policies needed to cover. The gov was going to be running so much of health care that one could just as well say they were running it.

As for lost freedom, just what freedoms are lost if we have a universal care medical plan? The freedom to go without insurance, and stick the rest of us with the bill when something happens and they have to go to the hospital?[/QUOTE]

You tell me who is more free:

the one who pick his own policy in a free market or the one who is forced to pick a policy that's content is gov determined or by placed in the public plan that's content is gov determined. Yes the one not choosing insurance in a free market sticks it to everyone else after they exhaust their own resources but in the public option 100% of the people stick it to the taxpayer and they don't even have to use up their own resources first. The number of people sticking it to the rest of us in a free market would be the 13% who are not insured AND who also get sick with a catastrophic illness. What would that be? Less than 1%?

 

[PLC1]

Why would we join the 3rd. We already have what many call the best system in the world except for the WHO.

If "many" means Hannity and Limabugh, then yes there are many calling it that.

It seems pretty hard to separate what is paid directly in premiums and what is paid in taxes. So lets not separate them: Find the average income of a country, subtract what they pay in taxes and in health insurance premiums and call the remainder "money they are left to enjoy their life with"

Now will France be better off than the US?

How about comparing apples to apples? Let's compare costs per capita or as a percentage of GDP. There is no need to compare apples to road apples, nor to say that another nation is paying more than the stats would indicate without showing evidence that your assertion is true.

Those parts are stripped from the bill now, but did you miss how the bill was going to make a panel that decided what treatment everyone could get and what private policies needed to cover. The gov was going to be running so much of health care that one could just as well say they were running it.

There was going to be a panel to decide what treatment everyone could get? Was that separate from the death panel, or a part of it?

Or, was there a provision for the government to own hospitals and for doctors to be government employees? That would be socialized medicine.

You tell me who is more free:

the one who pick his own policy in a free market or the one who is forced to pick a policy that's content is gov determined or by placed in the public plan that's content is gov determined. Yes the one not choosing insurance in a free market sticks it to everyone else after they exhaust their own resources but in the public option 100% of the people stick it to the taxpayer and they don't even have to use up their own resources first. The number of people sticking it to the rest of us in a free market would be the 13% who are not insured AND who also get sick with a catastrophic illness. What would that be? Less than 1%?

Well, we would lose the freedom to choose a policy that is so full of loopholes and exceptions as to be worthless, that much is so.

Would you be in favor of allowing the consumer to choose food that is tainted and do away with the FDA? There's a similar freedom that has been lost.

 

[PLC1]

 

[Little-Acorn]

An interesting cartoon.

The people outside, whom I guess represent the people in our country who don't want the leftists' govenment health care scheme, are carrying grossly misspelled signs, whihc I guess is the author's way of saying they are stupid without actually saying so... so he can't be argued with.

The guy with the Nobama sign, appears to be wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood. And another sign had a large "spade" from a deck of cards. Get it, "spade"....

All this points out that I left out one of the options from the poll, that will probably happen when the govt program starts running out of money:

Liberal lies will become more frequent and more vile.

 

[PLC1]

An interesting cartoon.

The people outside, whom I guess represent the people in our country who don't want the leftists' govenment health care scheme, are carrying grossly misspelled signs, whihc I guess is the author's way of saying they are stupid without actually saying so... so he can't be argued with.

The guy with the Nobama sign, appears to be wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood. And another sign had a large "spade" from a deck of cards. Get it, "spade"....

All this points out that I left out one of the options from the poll, that will probably happen when the govt program starts running out of money:

Liberal lies will become more frequent and more vile.

Thank you. I thought it was an interesting cartoon, too.

How about the guys on the inside, the ones talking about the "confuse the public" option, are you on their side?

 

[asur]

Even Warren Buffet says we will become a banana republic, unless
Obama raises our taxes, with or without Obamacare!

Warren voted for Obama!

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I said "Other". I think that many of the answers are true. Some are components of the general "..will be rationed.." option.

In general though, the Democrat-Communist-Fascist-Socialist Party needs to have domestic crisis to have any message at all. So their primary response to running out of money will be to shift funds from other essential programs, creating new crisis as they go, thus securing their own power base.

Unless, that is, the American people wake up to this before it's too late. When the collapse comes, the people in this country literally aren't going to know what hit them.

Sooner or later, the income they plan on grabbing and redistributing is going to come to an end. One way or another. Sooner or later the withdrawal of credit from foreign sources and the flooding of worthless cash into our system is going to create the type of hyper-inflation that most people in this country are totally clueless about.

 

[PLC1]

More on confusing the public: It's working.

FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

A new NBC News poll suggests some of the myths and partial truths about the plans under consideration are taking hold.

Most respondents said the effort is likely to lead to a "government takeover of the health care system" and to public insurance for illegal immigrants. Half said it will probably result in taxpayers paying for abortions and nearly that many expected the government will end up with the power to decide when treatment should stop for old people.

A look at each of those points:

 

[Dr.Who]

More on confusing the public: It's working.

FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root



A look at each of those points:

Except that the so called fact checker did a bait and switch raising the question and then answering it with a different part of the bill.

There will be a panel that WILL decide what treatments are given or not and the elderly will be less likely to get treatments than young productive people.

 

[Andy]

Even Warren Buffet says we will become a banana republic, unless
Obama raises our taxes, with or without Obamacare!

Warren voted for Obama!

Amazingly, or unsurprisingly, he doesn't include simply cutting expenses. But then, that's typical of a liberal. The idea of reducing services we can't pay for, never occurs to them.

 

[PLC1]

Except that the so called fact checker did a bait and switch raising the question and then answering it with a different part of the bill.

There will be a panel that WILL decide what treatments are given or not and the elderly will be less likely to get treatments than young productive people.

Not so.

Here is one of the myths from my link:

THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

So, the fact checker switched to what is actually being debated in Washington. I suppose maybe he switched from what is being debated on rant radio, or what the Obamai****ler folks are saying in the town hall meetings?

 

[Dr.Who]

Not so.

Here is one of the myths from my link:

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

So, the fact checker switched to what is actually being debated in Washington. I suppose maybe he switched from what is being debated on rant radio, or what the Obamai****ler folks are saying in the town hall meetings?

The relevant part of the bill is not the part that empowers payments but the part that empowers a panel to deny treatments.

As long as there is a panel that can deny certain treatments then there is a panel that has said authority.

 

[PLC1]

Not so.

Here is one of the myths from my link:





The relevant part of the bill is not the part that empowers payments but the part that empowers a panel to deny treatments.

As long as there is a panel that can deny certain treatments then there is a panel that has said authority.

Can you point out where the bill under consideration provides for panels that can deny treatment?