Obama's Candidacy


by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
Angry Citizen
Angry Citizen is offline
#163
Feb4-12, 10:32 AM
P: 867
why do you believe health care costs will be reduced by 50% when Obamacare is fully implemented?
Excuse me, I think I misread your post. I thought you were asking me about the cost of socialized medicine (which is the plan I advocate) rather than the cost of my actual insurance plan. I haven't the foggiest. I don't know what insurance I'll be on.

Furthermore, I don't believe health care costs will be reduced by 50% when Obamacare is fully implemented because it is not a socialized medical system. It is a universal health care system that is still farther to the right-wing than any western European system. But mark my words - our cost per capita will go down, and our health will increase as a result of it. Belgium has a reasonably similar UHC plan, and the figures for their system is widely available.

btw - please support your response if you decide to present specifics beyond your opinion.
The post you are quoting has a source from the University of California at Santa Cruz. I think that qualifies as support.
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#164
Feb4-12, 10:37 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
The post you are quoting has a source from the University of California at Santa Cruz. I think that qualifies as support.
I can't open your link. However, if it was on topic - it would be a good source.
Angry Citizen
Angry Citizen is offline
#165
Feb4-12, 10:38 AM
P: 867
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Accordingly, you posted mis-information. This is from your link "New regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) require health insurers to spend 80 to 85 percent of consumersí premiums on direct care for patients and efforts to improve care quality." my bold

You stated "However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care. "

Do you have any idea whatsoever the (pre-PPACA) average profit margin is for an insurance company or the average percentage of premium allocated to direct care for patients?
I see very little difference between my post and the link. 80% is a baseline figure. It is the minimum for the general populace. Since insurance companies do not acquire any income aside from premiums (please correct me otherwise), my statement matches.

As for the average percentage, no, I do not. However, we can be assured that it is lower than 80%:

http://fyi.uwex.edu/healthreform/aca...ct-jan-1-2011/

Specifically:

According to HealthCare.gov, the Department of Health and Human Servicesí website on health-care reform, the new rules will protect up to 74.8 million insured Americans. Some 9 million people could be eligible for rebates worth up to $1.4 billion.
Unless those darn HHS guys are lyin' again.
Angry Citizen
Angry Citizen is offline
#166
Feb4-12, 10:41 AM
P: 867
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
I can't open your link. However, if it was on topic - it would be a good source.
I'll quote relevant sections then (in full context):

Despite the wide gaps, higher spending on health care does not necessarily prolong lives. In 2000, theUnited States spent more on health care than any other country in the world: an average of $ 4,500 per person. Switzerland was second highest, at $3,300 or 71% of the US. Nevertheless, average US life expectancy ranks 27th in the world, at 77 years. Many countries achieve higher life expectancy rates with significantly lower spending. The chart below shows the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy. The red line indicates per-capita health expenditure (right axis), and shows that many countries outperform the US with approximately half the spending.
Below that portion is the attached chart. Note that the chart shows (for some reason) that the US's life expectancy is far higher than it actually is. Make sure to read the relevant paragraph above.
Attached Thumbnails
cost_longlife75.gif  
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#167
Feb4-12, 10:49 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
I see very little difference between my post and the link. 80% is a baseline figure. It is the minimum for the general populace. Since insurance companies do not acquire any income aside from premiums (please correct me otherwise), my statement matches.

As for the average percentage, no, I do not. However, we can be assured that it is lower than 80%:

http://fyi.uwex.edu/healthreform/aca...ct-jan-1-2011/

Specifically:



Unless those darn HHS guys are lyin' again.
Again, you posted mis-information - whether you "see very little difference" or not. In the future, please be sure to distinguish between your opinions and fact.

In the context of this thread about Obama's Candidacy - perhaps we should explore everything the President has ever said about the condition of the healthcare system and everything he's promised? Given that the PPACA will take another 2 years to implement - it seems a good topic to measure the President in the past, present, and future.
Angry Citizen
Angry Citizen is offline
#168
Feb4-12, 10:53 AM
P: 867
Again, you posted mis-information - whether you "see very little difference" or not. In the future, please be sure to distinguish between your opinions and fact.
Was my 'opinion' factually inaccurate? No. It was not. The error I made was a conservative error that would've benefited you had you not spoken up; given that the reality may be up to 85% on actual health care costs, that is just another plus in favor of the PPACA.
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#169
Feb4-12, 11:06 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
Was my 'opinion' factually inaccurate? No. It was not. The error I made was a conservative error that would've benefited you had you not spoken up; given that the reality may be up to 85% on actual health care costs, that is just another plus in favor of the PPACA.
If you want to present your opinion as factual - please support with more than additional opinions.
Angry Citizen
Angry Citizen is offline
#170
Feb4-12, 11:08 AM
P: 867
I can't make you read links. See support already given.
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#171
Feb4-12, 11:12 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
I can't make you read links. See support already given.
We both now the rules - let's (both follow them) and end the discussion here - get back on topic.
phoenix:\\
phoenix:\\ is offline
#172
Feb4-12, 03:53 PM
phoenix:\\'s Avatar
P: 74
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Did someone post "20 million people unemployed and looking for work" as factual?
Yes. Go back a few pages to see the post.
mheslep
mheslep is online now
#173
Feb5-12, 12:40 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
America doesn't; ...
Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.
Angry Citizen
Angry Citizen is offline
#174
Feb5-12, 08:54 AM
P: 867
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.
Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.

Anyway, documentation. Follow the link below. Scroll to 'downloads', then to the third download link from the top. Do the math: (medicaid+medicare)/total expenditure.

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthEx....asp#TopOfPage
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#175
Feb5-12, 09:08 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.

Anyway, documentation. Follow the link below. Scroll to 'downloads', then to the third download link from the top. Do the math: (medicaid+medicare)/total expenditure.

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthEx....asp#TopOfPage
Well - mheslep did indicate ~half, and it appears that is the case, or at least it's close depending on what one includes "health dollars spent"
Medicare and Medicaid paid a record 57.5% of patient bills for hospital, doctors, drugs and other care in the last quarter, up from 49.3% in 2005.
Contrast this
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/...ing/49776998/1

with this
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthEx...Historical.asp
Total health expenditures reached $2.6 trillion, which translates to $8,402 per person or 17.9 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the same share as in 2009.
I think this thread needs surgery to excise the OT discussion on government-supported medical care.

Please stick to the topic of "Obama's Candidacy".
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#176
Feb5-12, 09:38 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.

Anyway, documentation. Follow the link below. Scroll to 'downloads', then to the third download link from the top. Do the math: (medicaid+medicare)/total expenditure.

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthEx....asp#TopOfPage
How exactly does this information support your comment 'this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better'?

The topic of this thread is Obama's Candidacy - why don't we get back on topic. If you want to discuss healthcare in this thread - I'll repeat myself:

"In the context of this thread about Obama's Candidacy - perhaps we should explore everything the President has ever said about the condition of the healthcare system and everything he's promised? Given that the PPACA will take another 2 years to implement - it seems a good topic to measure the President in the past, present, and future. "
Jack21222
Jack21222 is offline
#177
Feb5-12, 10:14 AM
P: 771
While I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, at least he hasn't been much of a warmonger. I'm very happy with his foreign policy. It's also nice to have somebody that isn't trying to actively subvert scientific research in areas like stem cells and climate change.

I'll be rooting for him, though I won't vote for him. Voting for president in my state is completely useless, since it is going to go to Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.
Angry Citizen
Angry Citizen is offline
#178
Feb5-12, 10:15 AM
P: 867
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
While I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, at least he hasn't been much of a warmonger. I'm very happy with his foreign policy. It's also nice to have somebody that isn't trying to actively subvert scientific research in areas like stem cells and climate change.

I'll be rooting for him, though I won't vote for him. Voting for president in my state is completely useless, since it is going to go to Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.
Eh, it's still a +1 on the national count. Go for it. Plus you can vote for your state representative at the same time.
Jack21222
Jack21222 is offline
#179
Feb5-12, 10:26 AM
P: 771
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
Eh, it's still a +1 on the national count. Go for it. Plus you can vote for your state representative at the same time.
+1 on the national count accomplishes nothing. I'll probably end up voting for a third party candidate like I do every year, a +1 to them means marginally more.
Angry Citizen
Angry Citizen is offline
#180
Feb5-12, 10:28 AM
P: 867
It accomplishes something. It provides a greater mandate to the party you vote for. That is taken into consideration - unless you're 2009 Obama, apparently. *still slightly bitter*

As for third-party candidates, a +1 to them is the epitome of uselessness. No third party will ever rise in this system.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Rick Santorum's candidacy ... Current Events 492
Jon Huntsman's Candidacy Current Events 47
Evo's candidacy... Current Events 23