[Captain Crash]

(Original post by ckingalt)
In bold is why I oppose Obama's plan. I agree that we should provide health care for everyone. I only disagree because I don't believe we should provide everyone with health care even if "there's a very big chance it could devastate our economy."

I would rather wait it out when I have bronchitis than lose my job or business.

I'm interested to see how you think obamacare will destroy the economy? As it was, the US healthcare system was draining the economy dry with 15% of GDP spent on a not even comprehensive service.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
I'm interested to see how you think obamacare will destroy the economy? As it was, the US healthcare system was draining the economy dry with 15% of GDP spent on a not even comprehensive service.

I think he probably means that it is likely to increase the already astronomical US government debt, which is true, although in principal I think this is a good law.

[ckingalt]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
I'm interested to see how you think obamacare will destroy the economy? As it was, the US healthcare system was draining the economy dry with 15% of GDP spent on a not even comprehensive service.

Obama's health care plan did absolutely nothing to reduce the actual cost of health care. It has been suggested time and again that he should have implemented legislation to limit malpractice and class action suits (the astronomical cost of U.S. health care is mainly a result of "defensive medicine"). He also could have introduced legislation to allow medical insurance to be sold over state lines (this would have lowered cost by increasing competition).

Here is a math problem for you. Take a program which is 15% of GDP. Do nothing to reduce its' burden or make it more efficient. Then add an additional 50 million people to it, most of whom will contribute nothing to it. Increase it's budget to an estimated two trillion more dollars. Take into account that that two trillion has not been paid for (more debt!). Now tell me when you add those figures to an economy which highly troubled and likely already unsustainable........ What does that equal?

Spoiler:

Show

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by ckingalt)
Obama's health care plan did absolutely nothing to reduce the actual cost of health care. It has been suggested time and again that he should have implemented legislation to limit malpractice and class action suits (the astronomical cost of U.S. health care is mainly a result of "defensive medicine"). He also could have introduced legislation to allow medical insurance to be sold over state lines (this would have lowered cost by increasing competition).

Whilst litigation is a problem with US healthcare, it's not a huge contributor to it's cost. Ligitation costs account for <1% of total healthcare spending.

The main reason for increased cost of the US healthcare system is because of the free market. Healthcare has almost unlimited demands but very limited supply. This, combined with an asymmetry of knowledge between provider and consumer, leads to escalated costs driving by market forces and overtreatment (e.g. you get paid more as a hospital if you diagnose someone with an MRI scan rather than a much cheaper clinical examination).

As for competition across state lines, meh... It may help, but competition doesn't really have a track record of keeping a lid on costs in healthcare.

(Original post by ckingalt)
Here is a math problem for you. Take a program which is 15% of GDP. Do nothing to reduce its' burden or make it more efficient. Then add an additional 50 million people to it, most of whom will contribute nothing to it. Increase it's budget to an estimated two trillion more dollars. Take into account that that two trillion has not been paid for (more debt!). Now tell me when you add those figures to an economy which highly troubled and likely already unsustainable........ What does that equal?

Spoiler:

Show

I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers. The CBO estimated the overall impact of the bill is a $200bn reduction in deficit.


So arguements relating to deficit are moot, even if US was anywhere near the fiscal problems of Greece.

[ckingalt]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers. The CBO estimated the overall impact of the bill is a $200bn reduction in deficit.


So arguements relating to deficit are moot, even if US was anywhere near the fiscal problems of Greece.

It's actuall 1.76 Trillion over 10 years to be exact.

Spoiler:

Show

http://www.naturalnews.com/035324_Ob...are_costs.html

http://www.infowars.com/ten-years-of...nally-claimed/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...in-budget.html

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-...163500655.html

http://www.freedomradio.us/vof/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=10741bamacare-to-cost-176-trillion-dollars-over-10-years&catid=1&Itemid=100010

http://www.therightscoop.com/new-cbo...1-76-trillion/

http://clarkcountychatter.com/index....-176-trillion/

Are you sure your ideological beliefs aren't clouding your judgment when considering the likely impact of this bill? I honestly hope you are right in your assessment. Anyone who would wish for the failure of their nations economy just so they can be proven correct is guilty of the most absurd arrogance.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by ckingalt)
http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...m8V_story.html

It looks as though the United States is going to get their own version of the NHS even if most don't want it. I must say I was against "Obama Care". I don't object to providing health care to everyone in principle but I am truly fearful for the impact on America's economy. There is something like a 2 trillion dollar bill attached to this plan.

That's a really stupid fear to have.

[ckingalt]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
That's a really stupid fear to have.

I would argue it's stupid not the have that fear.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by ckingalt)
I would argue it's stupid not the have that fear.

To worry about the US economy is fine, to worry that socialized healthcare will have a detrimental impact on it is ridiculous.

[ckingalt]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
To worry about the US economy is fine, to worry that socialized healthcare will have a detrimental impact on it is ridiculous.

So it's fine to worry about the economy, but it is ridiculous to worry about the almost two trillion dollars of expense this will have on the economy.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by ckingalt)
So it's fine to worry about the economy, but it is ridiculous to worry about the almost two trillion dollars of expense this will have on the economy.

Well, to start with, you've pretty much pulled these numbers out of your arse, and secondly, it's a pittance compared to what's really ****ed the American budget- i.e. Bush-era tax cuts, extended by Obama, and military intervention in the Middle East (which is debatably justified, I'm not "one of those").

[ckingalt]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Well, to start with, you've pretty much pulled these numbers out of your arse, and secondly, it's a pittance compared to what's really ****ed the American budget- i.e. Bush-era tax cuts, extended by Obama, and military intervention in the Middle East (which is debatably justified, I'm not "one of those").

Open spoiler to see what is in my arse.

Spoiler:

Show

http://www.naturalnews.com/035324_Ob...are_costs.html

http://www.infowars.com/ten-years-of...nally-claimed/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...in-budget.html

http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-...163500655.html

http://www.freedomradio.us/vof/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=10741bamacare-to-cost-176-trillion-dollars-over-10-years&catid=1&Itemid=100010

http://www.therightscoop.com/new-cbo...1-76-trillion/

http://clarkcountychatter.com/index....-176-trillion/

By the way I am for canceling the tax cuts, and getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan. I believe when you have an uncontrollable debt you cut spending not increase it. No matter how strong I ideologically support socialized medicine, I believe fiscal security takes precedence.

[tc92]

Nice to see the Democrats out in force declaring, yet again, that it's not actually a tax in reality; it just comes under the tax code.

And of course, claiming it's only for "the 1%". Think they've still got that soundbite left over from a few weeks ago.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
Whilst litigation is a problem with US healthcare, it's not a huge contributor to it's cost. Ligitation costs account for <1% of total healthcare spending.

The main reason for increased cost of the US healthcare system is because of the free market. Healthcare has almost unlimited demands but very limited supply. This, combined with an asymmetry of knowledge between provider and consumer, leads to escalated costs driving by market forces and overtreatment (e.g. you get paid more as a hospital if you diagnose someone with an MRI scan rather than a much cheaper clinical examination).

As for competition across state lines, meh... It may help, but competition doesn't really have a track record of keeping a lid on costs in healthcare.


I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers. The CBO estimated the overall impact of the bill is a $200bn reduction in deficit.


So arguements relating to deficit are moot, even if US was anywhere near the fiscal problems of Greece.

I believe that this is probably the one of the main drivers of healthcare costs in the US rather than demand being the problem. Doctors essentially order entire batteries of tests on patients that are not needed or would be considered to unnecessary anywhere else.

I think the other problems are the AMA and the way in which they have ensured that Doctors are paid incredibly high amounts in comparison to their colleagues in Europe.

Also, perhaps the Pharmaceutical monopolies that have been granted to certain drugs have also driven up the prices.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by ckingalt)
Open spoiler to see what is in my arse.

By the way I am for canceling the tax cuts, and getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan. I believe when you have an uncontrollable debt you cut spending not increase it. No matter how strong I ideologically support socialized medicine, I believe fiscal security takes precedence.

What is the difference between Obama Care and what was passed by Romney in Massachusetts? Wasn't that a success since it has not added to the budget?

[Kiss]

That's going to cost a lot.

[Spaz Man]

I'm glad Justice Roberts was the honourable man I hoped he would be.

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by Herr)
It will be the beginning of the end of their world leading healthcare system all in the name of access when it could clearly be tackled by just regulating their health insurance industry like the Swiss do.

World leading??? Really? America's health care system?

[ckingalt]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
What is the difference between Obama Care and what was passed by Romney in Massachusetts? Wasn't that a success since it has not added to the budget?

The scope. Massachusetts is ranked amongst the highest median per household incomes in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ates_by_income

When Romney Care is confined within the borders of Massachusetts there is ample wealth to carry the program for the much smaller demographic of those who contribute nothing. When you disburse the same plan throughout the entire U.S. then the wealthier states like; Mass, Maryland, New Jersey, and Connecticut have to carry the poorer states like Arkansas, West Virginia and Mississippi. Suddenly the burden to middle class families goes from trivial to staggering. We are talking about households making less that $100,000 so it is hardly just a burden on the super rich.

Imagine if the NHS was expanded beyond the borders of England to encompass half of Europe. How would you feel sharing a Health Care system with the likes of Greece and Spain?

[ckingalt]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
I'm glad Justice Roberts was the man I hoped he would be. I think his conscience got the better of him there.

Justice Roberts has an exemplary record that has represented him as nothing other than honorable. Saying the "his conscience got the better of him", suggests otherwise.

I suspect you are one of those people who are unable to separate their ideology from morality.

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by ckingalt)
Justice Roberts has an exemplary record that has represented him as nothing other than honorable. Saying the "his conscience got the better of him", suggests otherwise.

I suspect you are one of those people who are unable to separate their ideology from morality.

I'm a Conservative so that line of reasoning doesn't make sense...

I do expect complete neutrality from Supreme Court Justices. What I meant was that he confirmed what I hoped was true about him (that he was honourable and not biased)

EDIT: There, I've edited it out of respect for your feelings.