Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on April 03, 2010, 09:40:27 PM
-
Let me get this straight. We passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a President that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
-
42? ???
-
Even better, they all say that it's going to lower our costs, yet they didn't put anything into the bill to address the issue of failing atrificial implants...i.e. a hip joint that fails within 3 years, instead of the usual 15.
Someone who is the unfortunate recipient of a malfunctioning item such as that has to pay full price for a new one, along with the surgical costs...and then the brand spankin' new medical device tax on top of that.
Yeah, reduce costs my shiny metal a$$ !
-
I'm actually in favor of a certain kind of socialized healthcare, just not Obama's brand of socialized healthcare, which I think is worse than the previous status quo.
It seems clear to me that if you mandate insurance for everyone and forbid insurers from dropping people with preexisting conditions or who are at high risk (though I think those are noble ideals*), all you end up doing is increasing health insurance costs. Meanwhile, Obamacare does little or nothing to address rising actual healthcare costs.
*ideals that only work if all of society, including health insurance companies, starts caring about nutrition and preventative healthcare rather than protesting that having to eat healthier food or take various other measures to help prevent various diseases is an infringement of their liberties. Of course it is an infringement, but so is forcing me to pay in part for bypass surgery for Joe "Royale-with-Cheese" Smith. I can tell you which infringement I'd be happier with, if you haven't already guessed.
-
BMacklem, it's better than that. They say it's going to insure more people, give better coverage and cost less. That runs counter to every law of economics and the marketplace. In the real world, customers can have a higher quality product, lower price or better service, but not all three.
It's just the way it works. Go to Home Depot, then go to the local hardware store. You'll likely get better service at the hardware store, but the price will be higher for the exact same item. If you get the same level of service at both, and the same price for a widget, chances are one store or both are selling a lower-quality widget.
I'm shopping for health insurance for our move to AL in a month, and I need to get all the medical info from my wife. She's dragging her feet, and I'm hounding her. She told me this morning that we don't need health insurance. When I told her she was nuts, she said, "well Doug (her friend) doesn't have health insurance". I told her that he doesn't need health insurance because he hasn't worked in over two years and has no assets. Thus he gets his health care paid for by us, the taxpayers. We don't have that luxury.
-
I know all that Dick, I was just pointing out one very major glaring error that can be used against the people who blindly follow the "mainstream" media and use all the tired old talking points that it's going to lower costs for all, and make coverage be across the board (even though their own studies have shown that it will still leave millions without any coverage, not to even mention any illegals that they grant amnesty to should that come to pass).
I was just giving one specific example of things the bill *could* have done to actually be useful, but do the exact opposite for.
Mainly those expensive hip replacement devices, and the medical device tax that is going to be levied on things like that.
-
I didn't mean to imply you weren't aware of the goofy argument. I'm just amazed at how many people bought the "covers more, does more, costs less" line of bull, and how the media just lets it slide.
I'd like to see just one mainstream journalist ask the president why the system needs a four-year head start in taxation before it gets fully off the ground.
-
Oh boy, if anyone asked him that, it'd take days or weeks even to get through his answer.
That one just can't be answered in 17 minutes and 22 seconds of talking points.
:laugh: