Obama Administration Spent $4.5 Billion on State Healthcare Websites

neo96


I agree some people need to stop being so dense.

Like the proponets of other countries healthcare systems

Well the USA system wasnt working before.

You had your chance to fix it you didnt

Now your stuck with Obama steaming pile of crap.

reply to post by neo96


I don't see it. Too many people know why it's happening and are too suspicious of government right now to want anything to do with single payer.

The managed slow collapse was to create a condition where the government puppet masters could make it look like insurance company greed solely and then people would cry out to government to save them with a single payer.

Right now, people know what did it and don't want any part of it.

neo96

So it is about money.

Thanks for validating an earlier point.

Its all about the money and someone elses.

And someone has to fork out for the poor. Its unacceptable that in any developed country people should die of lack of healthcare. Its like starvation, should be a thing of the third world.

But hey if the USA want to go to a dog eat dog barbaric system go right ahead. Just dont get annoyed when those who dont look down on you and laugh. Laugh at the fact we get a better deal on our healthcare

reply to post by crazyewok

Well the USA system wasnt working before.

Last person to be lecturing what the US does.

reply to post by neo96

That is exactly what I am talking about with demagoguery. There is no one who is denied healthcare in this country.

If cost isn't something you consider in that equation that sure. But the fact is that millions of Americans can't afford healthcare. It's not because it actually costs that much, it's because insurers have the options of charging an arm and a leg for coverage.

Look at Obamacare and the fiasco it is by allowing the 'exchange'. People will be paying more for their healthcare for less effective coverage.

I do?

This is the same argument as not needing car insurance because you've never been in a car accident. No you don't need it until you actually need it. However once you have to deal with Cancer or any other of the thousands of disease with treatments that costs thousands of dollars, you'd be pretty damn happy to have it methinks.

As long has you have been on ATS, and read the political threads. Rather sure you have seen what was meant there.

I assume we were having a conversation based on our personal interactions, not the thoughts and ideas of the membership at large.

True you don't have democrats and republicans there.

You say that, but lately, our leadership is more and more partisan the way you guys are.

I know Americans hate their government, I would to. But you can't just flat out say all government programs are crap because they come from the government. That's not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the people.

A good social program can exist, it's just a matter of forcing the people who are in charge of it, to run it correctly and for the people.

~Tenth

reply to post by crazyewok

And someone has to fork out for the poor. Its unacceptable that in any developed country people should die of lack of healthcare. Its like starvation, should be a thing of the third world.

Sound like a necon there.

Yes governments who don't pay for their citzenry's existence is truly 'barbaric'.

Glad that is sorted out.

neo96
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Well the USA system wasnt working before.

Last person to be lecturing what the US does.

Aww how cute the poor little guy cant think of a reply do to redircet things to my country instead aww

reply to post by tothetenthpower

If cost isn't something you consider in that equation that sure. But the fact is that millions of Americans can't afford healthcare. I

Sure did consider the cost there.

The cost of 100+ million Americans who are on medicare, and medicaid that count for over 1 trillion in debt that has no way to pay for it.

And the exponetial rise of care due to regulation, and fiat currency devaluation.

With Obama care adding 30 million new people to those rolls who 'couldn't pay for it'.

Look at Obamacare and the fiasco it is by allowing the 'exchange'. People will be paying more for their healthcare for less effective coverage.

Fiasco?

Obamacare was screwed, and intentionally. Look up one of its pundits like Reid saying it was a 'stepping stone to a single payer'.

Obama care was never designed to 'work'. It was designed to screw people over so they could 'save the day' yet agian.

This is the same argument as not needing car insurance because you've never been in a car accident. N

Absolutely true.

Same people who force us to buy car insurance are the same people saying I need healthcare.

Rinse and repeat fascism from the people 'supposedly' the servants of the people.

I assume we were having a conversation based on our personal interactions, not the thoughts and ideas of the membership at large.

Reread the thread ample examples of it.

But you can't just flat out say all government programs are crap because they come from the government.

Sure can.

Government programs are primarily funded via income tax these days. ThAT has a massive revenue shortfall that neither printing of money, and borrowing can cover.

They are nothing, but modern ponzi schemes: first in first out, and leave others holding the bag.

A good social program can exist, it's just a matter of forcing the people who are in charge of it, to run it correctly and for the people.

I obviously disagree. The people should be in charge. As we have seen the people are not in charge of jack.

They are slaves to the body politic. Most are all to willing accomplices to their own demise.

reply to post by neo96

And the exponetial rise of care due to regulation, and fiat currency devaluation.

Regulation is not the primary cause of rising healthcare costs. Nor is the fiat currency, although I agree that the fiat currency is the problem in general, overall, with every topic that touches finance.

Entirely different issue though.

The cost of 100+ million Americans who are on medicare, and medicaid that count for over 1 trillion in debt that has no way to pay for it.

But that's because the program is inherently broken and NOBODY wants to fix it. See the issue here? Not the program, the people running it.

Obamacare was screwed, and intentionally. Look up one of its pundits like Reid saying it was a 'stepping stone to a single payer'.

Obama care was never designed to 'work'. It was designed to screw people over so they could 'save the day' yet agian.

Well that's one theory, be interesting to see how that plays out.

Absolutely true.

There are certain things you just need to have these days friend. It's just the reality of it. You need car insurance, not for you, but because idiots are allowed to drive. You need health insurance, because eventually you're going to need to be looked after by somebody and if you can afford the price tag of private insurance that will do that for you, great.

Most people don't.

Government programs are primarily funded via income tax these days. ThAT has a massive revenue shortfall that neither printing of money, and borrowing can cover.

I'm confused. So you think focusing on creating revenue social programs is the key? That won't ever work, you know that. Social Programs aren't supposed to be profitable, they are supposed to be stable.

A properly balanced budget does not rely on any social program to boost revenue. Again, not a problem with the program, a problem with people who run it. You need to create revenue in other areas in order to pay for your high quality social programs that work well.

You can't have one without the other.

I obviously disagree. The people should be in charge. As we have seen the people are not in charge of jack.

And the victim mentality displayed by a lot of people presents that from happening. 90% of people don't want to be in charge of anything. That's why we have government, so that competent and professional folk can do the work we mandate them to do.

Anarchy isn't the solution, neither is any form of government that isn't a Republic.

Again, all this requires is a properly written law and program. There are challenges, but Healthcare has been left to the free market forever now. Outside of Medicaire and Medicaid of course and how well has that served Americans?

Not very.

~Tenth

reply to post by crazyewok

Aww how cute the poor little guy cant think of a reply do to redircet things to my country instead aww

Well since others are saying my healthcare system is so 'barbaric' . They need to explain how other countries healthcare systems are so 'supposedly' better when they are running massive debt.

Feel free.

That was what the video was about.

Have anything of substance other than that 'witty' repartee ?

Of course the US has significantly more people living here around 330 million + all them 'illegals'.

Rather intellectually dishonest to compare countries healthcare systems. Especially not taking into consideration the government systems, and the currency values.

Part of the problem is that the government and the insurance companies have stood between us and our providers for so long that market is no longer priced to us. It's priced to them because they have far deeper pockets than we do.

It's Econ 101.

If I'm selling widgets, the widgets are worth whatever I can get people to pay for them. If the market will only support a price point of $100/widget, nothing stops me from charging $1,000/widget, but I won't sell any widgets that way. I would have to find a way to lower my price to what the market will support in order to sell widgets, meaning I would have price my widgets to $100/widget or less.

However, the US has a different situation going on.

In the US, some people said, "It's not fair that we have to pay $100/widget. We need widgets. They're a right!"

So, the government started helping some people buy widgets. Now, the government needs all kinds or rules and red tape and paperwork in order to process its widget program, so now the price of widgets goes up, besides, the government can absorb those extra costs because it has all kinds of money. Right? Now, for various reasons, widgets costs $200/widget, then $300/widget, then $400 ... and so on and so forth.

Then regular people started having trouble affording widgets, especially in emergencies, so someone came up with the bright idea to ensure people against widgets. Pretty soon, everyone was getting widget insurance. Sure, it cost money every month to get it, but it cost less in any one month than the price of replacing or buying a widget did, and if you needed a widget, the insurance made sure you had one.

Now, because of the added paper demands of all the insurance companies, widgets could get even more expensive and for the same reasons as they had under just government interference. Pretty soon, no one except the super rich could afford to just buy a widget straight out of their own pocket. Everyone needed either the government to buy their widget or the insurance company.

And this is the state of US health care.

Making the system single payer only makes this a monopoly and does not actually fix a large part of the underlying problem - which is that the system has a layer or two of middlemen between you and your point of service making its costs grossly inflated.

reply to post by neo96


Im not going to hold the uk up as a prime example, yeah its better than america but it got some major flaws still.


No im looking to countrys that are top of all the surveys and lists. Hong kong and singapore are 1&2 and both have some of the lowest taxes in the world and most the healthcare is mostly private except for the truely poor. Also at the top are norway and sweden who are running very low debts right now.

So no im not going to hold the uk up, but there are better options out there.


Any the usa had decades to reform on your own It didnt now your goverment steped in and has given you the steaming turd you have now. America has got the health care it deserves imo.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Regulation is not the primary cause of rising healthcare costs. Nor is the fiat currency, although I agree that the fiat currency is the problem in general, overall, with every topic that touches finance.

It is a combination of all of the above. ALL play a factor. But then again insurance companies do not set doctors, or nurses pay, or hospital fees.

The only thing they do is pay the damn bill. But who pays that bill?

The insured pays a pittance. The rest is covered by those who are not using their healthcare.

Government plays a significant role in that cost.

But that's because the program is inherently broken and NOBODY wants to fix it. See the issue here? Not the program, the people running it.

Those programs were never designed to work. True nobody wants them fixed, But then again they should have never been created in the first place.

For instance Social Security, and Medicaid, and Medicare alone account for over 2 trillion of yearly government spending. Taxation doesn't generate the revenue needed to pay for them. Printing and borrowing doesn't generate the money needed to cover them. Which is the leading cause of US debt.

That go to them evil corporations that is vilified so much.

There are certain things you just need to have these days friend. It's just the reality of it. You need car insurance, not for you, but because idiots are allowed to drive. You need health insurance, because eventually you're going to need to be looked after by somebody and if you can afford the price tag of private insurance that will do that for you, great. Most people don't.

Well that's one theory, be interesting to see how that plays out.

Most people don't ?

Medicare 60 million
Medicaid 56 million

There is around 150 million 'workers' in the US that I would say most have insurance.

The population of the US is around 330 million.

Before Obama care children up to the age of 18 were covered on their mothers and fathers insurance.

Then by law anyone receives medical care.

So most people 'didn't' ?

Don't buy it.

So back to square one I can already get treatment at any hospital or 'free' clinic.

So not buying the hyperbole in the least.

I'm confused. So you think focusing on creating revenue social programs is the key?

Yeah for some odd reason I think government programs should pay for themselves. Hell let it be an American 'first'.

None of them do as it stands now. So what is their to be confused about ?

What happens to the people when their government comes crashing down on top of them?

Again, not a problem with the program, a problem with people who run it

A program that can not sustain itself will fail.

That is what is happening with all of them.

And sorry social engineering programs all fail. Because the money runs out.

People have the ability to adapt so I don't get why people want social engineering when it is an epic failure.

Healthcare is the new 'too big to fail'.

And the victim mentality displayed by a lot of people presents that from happening. 90% of people don't want to be in charge of anything. That's why we have government, so that competent and professional folk can do the work we mandate them to do.

Then people deserve what they get imo,

Haven't seen the government, in any place. to be Competent and professional.

There are challenges, but Healthcare has been left to the free market forever now.

Nope a free market only exists in the absence of government intervention.

Between fiat currency, and regulation, taxation, and those must have social programs(medicaid, and medicare) a free market doesn't exist.

Remember now those 2 programs insure over 100+ million people, cost over 1 trillion dollars that is not in the private sector.

This nation had a 'free market' neither program would exist.

The government is the largest insurer in this country. There is not single private company that has that market share or revenue stream.

If Wyoming gets $800,000 for website, then every state should be able to do the same job at that rate.
California got ten times more $930,000,00?!!
Because Obama wants to keep "buying the electoral votes" needed to steal the election...

reply to post by xuenchen


I know of a lot of medical programs that might cure diseases that could be funded with 4500 million dollars! I know there are plans for implantable islets that can survive in type one diabetics, and they have already been proven safe in trials. How about using all that money to fund medical reasearch that is PROMISING instead of wasting it on a web site?

Big pharma and the FDA do not want to cure diseases. They want to keep people on drugs for life that they have to pay thousands for every year. Each of those medications has "unpleasant" often life-threatening or life-shortening effects!

If they put that much money into "promising medical research" that in some cases has been tested and already been proven to be SAFE and EFFECTIVE in living organisms, the American people could be free of a lot of illness and be able to live better lives. Also, there would not be all the medical debts in this country. America, Cure the World. You have the technology and the resources to do it. Or is simply that the medical system and America are built to fail???

Most here are bashing Obama for this, but did you see from the op link that every state except Alaska applied for these funds. Does it matter?

sheepslayer247
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I don't believe that was/is the goal. If the US goes to a single-payer system, it would effectively leave the insurance companies high and dry. That is not and would not be acceptable in the pro-corporate fascist world of politics and business.

Except you forget that people will be needed to run the new system. Who better than the insurance execs? So they will make out like bandits.

reply to post by InFriNiTee


This again is the product of the system we have.

It's not a free market system where the exchange is direct between buyer and producer, but one where the product filters through several middle men with the government and insurer figure a prime role in distorting the market and making it unprofitable to cure disease (assuming they do have cures).

First you have the government gate keepers who determine what will and will not be allowed as treatments with their regulatory regimes.

Second you have the legal tort gauntlet. If someone might sue over it for any reason, it doesn't matter how effective it might be, a company could keep it shelved.

Third, you have the insurance companies, if they can't be coaxed to add it to their formularies (Obamacare is going to throw a big monkeywrench in here), then there is no point.

Developing any kind of medication is extremely costly because of one and a company has every right to expect a return on its investment. Then because of the process in my Econ 101 post upthread, the cost of any medication is going to be skyhigh because of distorted cost mechisms in the market. Then, thanks to the price controls instituted by socialized medicine countries, the US subsidizes other countries' medications. They buy below cost, and we make up the difference. It all combines to make our medications grossly expensive.

Now, I suppose that our government could impose price controls, too, but then there would be no incentive to develop at all. The pharmas would either go out of business, or they move to other countries where they are allowed to develop and the cycle would continue. And then, we would have to depend on government for one more thing in this country ... Great.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Oh, no, no ...

In this version of America, it's only cronies who get valuable positions like that, not people who actually might have a clue what they're doing.

People blasted Bush for appointing Brown to FEMA ... That's nothing compared to the sheer magnitudes of ineptness displayed by the crony appointments connected with Obamacare.

reply to post by ketsuko


I agree with you. I think that healthy people that are free of disease might be able to make more money for the governemnt to tax, than those that are sick and costing the government. Let's say that the government pays for a majority of medical trials that don't work or are proven to be worse than the current regimen? the govenrmnet in some way might seem to lose some money there, but for every debilitating condition that is cured the government will make SO MUCH more off of the cured people who can generate tax income and boost the economy. What if they cured diabetes or other autoimmune dieseases? Even if they spent 45 billion to cure just diabetes, well diabetes costs America $260 billion a year on the taxpayer's backs and the government's as well. If it was cured, there would be no more dialysis, a1c tests, blood tests, insulin injections, syringes, etc.

If it costs that much to cure just diabetes it woulds save the people and the government a trillion dollars over 4 years! America does have the tech to do it. The FDA could fast-track some things that have been proven to be effective and safe that haven't made it through due to lack of funding for FDA trials.

Like I said, I agree wih what you said, but I can see how this could save the economy of the world. As one disease gest cured, move to the next. It would be a boon to the economy because America could sell each cure it finds to the rest of the world.

Edit to add: Endocrinologists are usually the ones who help diabetics. There are plenty of other endocrine problems that have not been cured as of yet. There would be less diabetes doctors, but perhaps those physicians could get qualified in other areas of the same field? As more cures are found, there would always be jobs for the people who helped the cured people.

If life had more value, humanity would have traveled the stars by now and spread to habitable planets.