It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Healthcare lost due to short sightedness?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
today the Congressional Budget Office announced that Obama's healthcare proposal will not save any money over the next decade.


"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.


Read more: www.politico.com...

Even though the idea is about providing affordable care for all US citizens this news is welcome ot the republicans and other groups who oppose a 'public option'.


"The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. ... Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term," Orszag wrote. "In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset."


Sad to think that because instant savings would not be realized this could be a nail in the proverbial coffin of the public option.

Still, close to half the nation WANTS this public option so there is still time and momentum for working out the finer details in regards to pricing and savings.

Personally taking control of costs at the corporate level would undoubtedly help.

the cost of the machinery, medications and other such factors could undoubtedly contribute greatly to reducing costs.




posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Yes, But then there would be the horde of people claiming that cutting costs and socializing health care would lead to lower quality (which I personally find a load of hogswallop but there you have it).

My personal opinion on the matter may be slightly skewed. I have witnessed a number of my family members depend upon a "public option" in Europe in order to survive (Dialysis -> Kidney transplants) and I am infinitely thankful to a "free" (it never truly is) healthcare service, that did not add insult to injury.

While I am aware that corporatism wants a slice, and that the transition from the private sector is still rough and uneven, I am still horrified by the fact that we are talking in terms of profits. Were it up to me (perhaps its better that it is not. perhaps not.) healthcare would not be a question of financial parity but one of our most basic social rights, and warrants as much attention as homeland security. Whose budget has paid no heed to expenses over the years. For absolutists, and those driven by utilitarian ethic principles, I would urge them to look at the number of preventable deaths and the threat of a possible pandemic when compared to foreign threats.



[edit on 25-7-2009 by Oscitate]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Sounds like your for this bill?

Have you kept up with what is going on.... This bill is a LEMON.

I do not have a problem with universal healthcare if it is done right... but THIS bill is crap.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
interesting. i did not pick up on this at first.


the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

Read more: www.politico.com...


So the cost of covering the 50,000,000 uninsured in the USA would cost 1 trillion AND in addition it would save $2,000,000,000?

Ummmm....is it just me or is this a no brainer?



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
double post sorry....

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Animal]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Well the way I read it is that the amount saved is almost negligible when compared with the bill's price tag.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Hey.... point blank... CONGRESS voted AGAINST having to have this plan themselves... twice.

Enough said.... it is a lemon and I love how our "public servants" who are "representing" our best interest are making damned sure that THEY do not have to have this sh itty plan themselves.

That should be an eye opener for all that think they support this bill. The same people who are pushing this bill OVERWHELMINGLY voted against having to have it themselves.... Doesn't it make you wonder why?

It is Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Let's have that same plan Obama promised in the campaign! The same plan that you and Senator McCain enjoy!

www.humanevents.com...


Democrats also voted down an amendment from Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nv.) that would require all Members of Congress to get insurance through the government-run plan. Apparently Democrat members of Congress do not like the government plan they’re trying to inflict on the rest of us. In a straight party line vote, Democrats voted against exempting themselves from the government-run plan by a vote of 21-18.

“We also had an amendment to require that members of Congress must participate in the government-run plan,” Camp said. “If it’s such a great idea, it should be a great idea for members of Congress. The majority voted to prevent that from happening. They voted to exempt members of Congress from the government-run plan.”

Also voted down were amendments that would require proof of citizenship or legal status to sign up for the government plan, that would bar government funding abortion as a plan “benefit,” and an amendment that would bar rationing of health care based on comparative effectiveness data.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Unfortunately, this bill would not have done any of the wonderful things that most people think it would have. The nine million people who are not already covered by some form of health care in the US (yes, the real number is nine million, the 42 million generally quoted is in error) would have been subjected to the same health care that retired members of the US armed forces are offered. Anyone remember the dust up over the conditions at the Bethesda Medical Center last year? That was the type of health care that Obama and Congress wanted to foist upon the nation.

I won't be in favor of any Government sponsored health care until they can prove that they can take care of our veterans first.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   



Even though the idea is about providing affordable care for all US citizens this news is welcome ot the republicans and other groups who oppose a 'public option'.



It's not about providing affordable health care for everybody.

It is about penalizing those who manage to scrape by with barely affordable and substandard healthcare being taxed to provide health care for those who aren't going to pay for it.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


What does "providing affordable health care for all US citizens" (plus 9+ million illegals) have to do with what is really giving health care to people who can't or won't pay for it? Those who can now pay for it for themselves won't find it more affordable to pay for everybody else plus themselves...those who can't/won't pay for it won't be affording anything either, they'll just be GETTING IT for free (like how poor people "pay taxes" and get back a welfare dole Earned Income Tax Credit).

Double-talk phrases pollute the mind and make thinking difficult...plus the government doesn't really "provide" much because the government doesn't make much...all the health-care products/services the government would "provide" are already available, the government would just be taking them away from the more able capable rich worthwhile persons and giving them to the incapable poor and relatively worthless persons...that doesn't sound to me like the government is going to make or save much doing THAT process, nor increase the GDP compared with just letting poor people die (if that's what's really happening now, I know lots of poor people who've gotten expensive treatment currently) and since the government is already going broke with no plan to avoid insolvency, maybe we ought to wait until we have a little extra money before we start to entertain all these clever promises from liars...

If the whole country goes Weimar to give health care to the poor for a few years, wouldn't the result of that ruin ultimately be fewer persons treated overall?... "Ah, but it would be FAIR"...like the song says "IT'S CRUEL TO BE KIND", get real.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join