## Obama's Candidacy

We both now the rules - let's (both follow them) and end the discussion here - get back on topic.

 Quote by WhoWee Did someone post "20 million people unemployed and looking for work" as factual?
Yes. Go back a few pages to see the post.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Angry Citizen 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.

 Quote by mheslep 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.

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthEx....asp#TopOfPage

 Quote by mheslep 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 by Angry Citizen 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".

 Quote by Angry Citizen 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. "

 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.

 Quote by Jack21222 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.

 Quote by Angry Citizen 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.

 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.

 Quote by Angry Citizen 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.
I disagree about the mandate thing, particularly when if Obama wins, he can't run for reelection again. He'll just do what he wants to do regardless of how many people voted for him. Even then, I don't think mandates mean anything. Just look at Bush... he barely won his first election, and lost in the popular vote, but he still crammed a voluntary, unpopular war down our throats.

I think democrats are spineless and I disagree with some of their spending habits. I think republicans fascist control freaks, but I agree with the general idea of cutting spending in some areas. If you claim there is a mandate for the winning party, I claim there is a mandate for "none of the above."

 Quote by Jack21222 I disagree about the mandate thing, particularly when if Obama wins, he can't run for reelection again. He'll just do what he wants to do regardless of how many people voted for him. Even then, I don't think mandates mean anything. Just look at Bush... he barely won his first election, and lost in the popular vote, but he still crammed a voluntary, unpopular war down our throats. I think democrats are spineless and I disagree with some of their spending habits. I think republicans fascist control freaks, but I agree with the general idea of cutting spending in some areas. If you claim there is a mandate for the winning party, I claim there is a mandate for "none of the above."
I think President Obama will need to have control of both the House and Senate (as he did in the first 2 years with Pelosi and Reid) to just do what he wants. The 2010 results would have to be completely reversed to conclude a mandate - IMO.

 Quote by Angry Citizen 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.
I'd say it's an example of how unworkable they are, because their costs have been increasing exponentially. At some point, rationing is going to be implemented into Medicare (beyond what it already is) because the government won't be able to handle the very high costs. The UK, Norway, Canada, and Sweden all have both had to deal with rationing due to excessive healthcare costs in their single-payer systems (LINK), with Sweden partially privatizing theirs.

 Quote by Angry Citizen 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.
Switzerland has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so I don't know if spending a lot of money on healthcare is a bad sign. The U.S. spends more per capita on public education than most everyone as well, and that is a socialist system, so I doubt nationalizing the healthcare system would make things become cheaper.

 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.
That's because the life expectancy calculation doesn't correct for car accidents and homicides. A LOT of Americans die each year from car accidents and homicides. If you remove those two variables from the life expectancy calculation, you get a much better result. Two economists in 2006, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider, performed a study in which they did just this and found that when corrected, the U.S. life expectancy jumps to number one. Their method has been criticized, and the authors said that they aren't sure of the exact numbers, but that they wanted to point out how the statistic can jump around depending on how it is calculated (and if one is going to use life expectancy as a way to compare the quality of healthcare systems, things like car accidents and murders need to be accounted for in computing it): LINK1 LINK2

The U.S. also ranks very high in cancer survival rates, whereas the UK lags behind the advanced countries in this (LINK). Other countries such as Norway and Sweden rank fairly well in cancer survival rates, so I mean while not always meaning bad treatment, socialized medicine doesn't guarantee great quality treatment nor does a more privatized system like the U.S. has mean lack of it.

 Quote by CAC1001 I'd say it's an example of how unworkable they are, because their costs have been increasing exponentially. At some point, rationing is going to be implemented into Medicare (beyond what it already is) because the government won't be able to handle the very high costs. The UK, Norway, Canada, and Sweden all have both had to deal with rationing due to excessive healthcare costs in their single-payer systems (LINK), with Sweden partially privatizing theirs.
Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.

Norway, and Sweden have generally comparable outcomes to us, and spend much less per capita overall on healthcare- no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer. We may reduce quality of care (you can at least argue that).

Also, rationing is a non-issue. Much US care is already rationed by the insurance plans your job offers.

 Quote by ParticleGrl Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.
Private sector healthcare is private-sector, but it isn't really free-market, and without the free-market component, private-sector isn't necessarilly better.

 Norway, and Sweden have generally comparable outcomes to us, and spend much less per capita overall on healthcare- no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer. We may reduce quality of care (you can at least argue that).
I think one could doubt whether we would spend less money with single-payer. Look at public education. We spend more per pupil what other countries spend (on average) and yet it is a socialist system. Or it could be as you say where spending would decline, but so would quality.

 Also, rationing is a non-issue. Much US care is already rationed by the insurance plans your job offers.
All things are rationed, I am referring to care being rationed via governmental fiat than by the price system (although we probably have bureaucratic rationing in private-sector health care to a degree as well due to the lack of interstate competition between health insurance companies).

 It seems to me that the problem of adequate healthcare for a certain portion of the population is a, presumably, solvable problem that hasn't yet been solved. There seem to be plenty of facilities, beds, technology, nurses, doctors, etc. So, why is it that a certain, arguably significant, portion of the American population can't get adequate health care? Because they can't afford to pay what that costs ... right? Well, why does it cost so much? Does it need to cost as much as it does? Is the cost of healthcare inordinately inflated? Is there a way to make preventative healthcare affordable to everybody in America? I don't know. I'm asking. Apparently Obamacare doesn't solve the problem. Why not? Is it any sort of an improvement? Why, or why not?

 Quote by ParticleGrl Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.
I'm still not certain what any of this has to do with the topic Obama's Candidacy?

Perhaps we should restrict the healthcare debate to PPACA specifics vs Candidate and President Obama promises?

In the first two years of President Obama's term, the PPACA was the priority of the Democrat Team consisting of President Obama, House Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid. This is the legislation they passed - didn't they promise it would fix health care, create jobs, and reduce deficits.

If I recall, passing this 2,000 page Bill was so important there wasn't any time for Congress to read the final draft before voting - even though full implementation won't happen until 2014.