Obama reveals new health care plan- costs $950 billion

[myp]

The President unveiled another health care reform proposal today in hopes of getting something done on the issue. The new plan, estimated to cost $950 billion over the next 10 years, is similar to the Senate version, but includes more spending, more subsidies, and a different tax plan. The plan is obviously going to be part of the Thursday meeting on health care reform, but it clearly has not given into any Republican ideas- if anything, it has gone even further away. Personally, I do not see the point of adding spending, subsidies, taxes, etc. to a plan that was criticized for just that and wouldn't pass because of just that.

Thoughts?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...600.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

 

[Dirk]

WARNING: Left Wing Rant Ahead

I love this. It's hilarious. It's great how one of the intentions of the reform was to reduce costs!

What a moron! The American health system is a waste of time and space - a disaster - why the hell work inside it?

Stop spending money on it and create a new one! If you're going to do it through the state, do it properly. But no, apparently he would rather appease massive insurance corporations, and perpetuate this stupid and frankly corrupt system. Bloody liberals and their "market solutions" - an NHS of sorts would have been better. Cheaper, more effective, less bureaucratic and maybe it would improve things, hmmm?

Universal healthcare is a wonderful thing. A good way of doing things is to charge for prescriptions, maybe charge the rich for treatment as well, make everything free for the poor and charge only prescriptions for everyone else.

I mean for goodness sake, people are more important than your damned ideology, Mr Obama.

 

[chuck schmidt]

The number of people in the world's wealthiest nation who cannot afford basic health care has been announced internationally. The pricing practices of the health insurance sector that are funding the fight against health care are recognized internationally as a failure of democracy. Then consider a health system that must be accessed by workers through their employers thereby rendering the health of their children a bargaining chip, and you get the third leg of disrepute in the health care triad. This state of affairs challenges America?s moral ascendancy internationally.

$950 billion over ten years is $95 billion a year. That amount could come out of the US military budget and not leave a single US citizen at home more threatened or less safe than they are today. The annual cost per citizen ($95B / @ 330,000,000 Americans) rounds up to $288. That is a pittance for national health. It is less than 1,440 a year for a family of five. The family of five now paying $1,200 a month for health insurance will save over $12,900 a year.

 

[dave]

The number of people in the world's wealthiest nation who cannot afford basic health care has been announced internationally. The pricing practices of the health insurance sector that are funding the fight against health care are recognized internationally as a failure of democracy. Then consider a health system that must be accessed by workers through their employers thereby rendering the health of their children a bargaining chip, and you get the third leg of disrepute in the health care triad. This state of affairs challenges America?s moral ascendancy internationally.

$950 billion over ten years is $95 billion a year. That amount could come out of the US military budget and not leave a single US citizen at home more threatened or less safe than they are today. The annual cost per citizen ($95B / @ 330,000,000 Americans) rounds up to $288. That is a pittance for national health. It is less than 1,440 a year for a family of five. The family of five now paying $1,200 a month for health insurance will save over $12,900 a year.

The plan will require $950B from the government PLUS taxes/fees levied on employers PLUS subsidies from the health care industry ...... and probably other payments from individuals which aren't mentioned explicitely and I don't have time to figure out. Its not going to be $288 per year per person.

The $950 B number is meaningless, the CBO has to compute the cost under guidelines set by Congress. Congress says it will reduce medicare by 10% by removing waste and abuse, the CBO has to assume that is true. Congress says medicare physician reimbursements will be capped, the CBO has to assume that will happen - even though the cap is removed in another bill so its a wash, but since the CBO has to work under the guidelines set by Congress, it can't "know" the cap is not real and has to assume false savings.

Why do you think Congress keeps tweaking the bill and sending it back to the CBO? Its an accounting game.

And remember, under the plan, Congress collects revenue for 10 years but benefits do not start until year 4.

 

[David]

WARNING: Left Wing Rant Ahead

I'll not post the whole thing then but to answer, it's because this reform is to help the insurance companies, not the people.

 

[Dirk]

I'll not post the whole thing then but to answer, it's because this reform is to help the insurance companies, not the people.

Ow, i got that. $950 bil. gift.

 

[chuck schmidt]

The plan will require $950B from the government PLUS taxes/fees levied on employers PLUS subsidies from the health care industry ...... and probably other payments from individuals which aren't mentioned explicitely and I don't have time to figure out. Its not going to be $288 per year per person.

Some posters seem to reply to every post with which they disagree politically by saying somebody's lying, often government. If somebody thinks the government is that misleading and untrustworthy, why even be American?

 

[myp]

Some posters seem to reply to every post with which they disagree politically by saying somebody's lying, often government. If somebody thinks the government is that misleading and untrustworthy, why even be American?

Let me remind you that the United States was built out of a distrust and unhappiness with government and embodied in our Constitution and in the words of the founding fathers are the ability and almost duty to voice one's opinion and to fight the government when something is amiss. Criticizing government is completely American and it is certainly a core principle of any free society.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Let me remind you that the United States was built out of a distrust and unhappiness with government and embodied in our Constitution and in the words of the founding fathers are the ability and almost duty to voice one's opinion and to fight the government when something is amiss. Criticizing government is completely American and it is certainly a core principle of any free society.

And let me remind you that being anti-authority is a sign of immaturity. America is no longer a baby nation. In fact the US government is one of the oldest governments on earth. A post claiming to be anti-authority and obeying the founding fathers is a contradiction in terms, and a sign of a Walter Mitty mentality.

 

[Dirk]

Being anti-authority is not immature, nor is the concept solely with the New Right, Chuck.

 

[myp]

And let me remind you that being anti-authority is a sign of immaturity. America is no longer a baby nation. In fact the US government is one of the oldest governments on earth. A post claiming to be anti-authority and obeying the founding fathers is a contradiction in terms, and a sign of a Walter Mitty mentality.

No, you are simply wrong here. The founding fathers installed the bill of rights so that people would remain active in voicing their opinions against government. In fact, Jefferson, Madision, and the likes were often quoted as saying that the people were meant to keep the government in check.

Besides the political side of this aspect, look at it philosophically. Just because a leader, ruler, country, or government is old, does that mean it is right? Does that mean we should blindly follow it? It is that sort of thinking that lead's to extremism such as those in the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini. Furthermore, what if one is an anarchist like our friend Dirk? Should he simply shut up because the government is old and established? That makes no sense and it only asks for people to go against what they believe in and their consciouses.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Being anti-authority is not immature, nor is the concept solely with the New Right, Chuck.

It is not necessarily immature. Such a grandiose display of it passes my immaturity threshold.

 

[Dirk]

No, you are simply wrong here. The founding fathers installed the bill of rights so that people would remain active in voicing their opinions against government. In fact, Jefferson, Madision, and the likes were often quoted as saying that the people were meant to keep the government in check.

I don't think that's what he meant.

Besides the political side of this aspect, look at it philosophically. Just because a leader, ruler, country, or government is old, does that mean it is right? Does that mean we should blindly follow it? It is that sort of thinking that lead's to extremism such as those in the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini. Furthermore, what if one is an anarchist like our friend Dirk? Should he simply shut up because the government is old and established? That makes no sense and it only asks for people to go against what they believe in and their consciouses.

I agree. You could use a number of examples here:

Slavery was well-established in Britain, does that mean the abolitionists were wrong to oppose it?

Capitalism had been established in some parts of the world for more than a hundred years, does that mean Malatesta and Bakunin were wrong to oppose it?

Monarchy was very well-established by the 1770s, does that mean the American Revolutionaries were wrong to espouse republicanism (small r)?

 

[chuck schmidt]

No, you are simply wrong here. The founding fathers installed the bill of rights so that people would remain active in voicing their opinions against government. In fact, Jefferson, Madision, and the likes were often quoted as saying that the people were meant to keep the government in check.

Besides the political side of this aspect, look at it philosophically. Just because a leader, ruler, country, or government is old, does that mean it is right? Does that mean we should blindly follow it? It is that sort of thinking that lead's to extremism such as those in the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini.

Everything in moderation, my friend. A primary purpose of government is to protect people from each other. The underlying American ethic is the individual before the collective. However when it becomes extreme, individuality threatens the collective that gives individuals security. Take for instance in 2008-9 when the collective all chipped in (through the tax base) to prop up the financial sector, and CEO's scooped millions as personal bonuses? That denied the companies the ability to use the money for survival, which in turn hurt the people who contributed the money. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." It almost guarantees no more help next time, which is destructive to society. Whether the "help" was politically wise is not the issue here. The issue is the behaviour and how it threatens us all. America seems to be becoming the same model of government as the 1770's British government against which it rebelled.

I am not speaking out against the duty of the electorate to critique and control government. If critiquing the government is a duty (which I believe), it should be done responsibly. The US model seems to be massive mutual mistrust. Combine that with America's knee-jerk resort to violence and you have a military dictatorship in waiting. History proves that government has the power to eventually crush its citizens, especially government with the power of America's. The actions of the above CEO's did not support the American way. They weakened the fabric of trust that must exist in any peaceful culture. IMO America has lost the middle ground in which average citizens can relax in their homes knowing that society is stable. Even your average bureaucrat now sits at home fearful of his government. Something somewhere has to budge, or being American promises increasing incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Everything in moderation.

 

[myp]

The underlying American ethic is the individual before the collective. However when it becomes extreme, individuality threatens the collective that gives individuals security. Take for instance in 2008-9 when the collective all chipped in (through the tax base) to prop up the financial sector, and CEO's scooped millions as personal bonuses? That denied the companies the ability to use the money for survival, which in turn hurt the people who contributed the money. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." It almost guarantees no more help next time, which is destructive to society. Whether the "help" was politically wise is not the issue here. The issue is the behaviour and how it threatens us all. America seems to be becoming the same model of government as the 1770's British government against which it rebelled.

I am not sure how this supports your point here. You are blaming the collectivist, yet arguing for it. Furthermore, the financial crisis was largely the unintended consequence of government acting collectively. The health care plan is just another attempt to move towards the collective from the individual.

These protests against the healthcare bill are not there without cause- they are there because this government continues to forget the underlying principle of the individual over the collective and in doing so it continues to rob us of our freedoms.

The US model seems to be massive mutual mistrust. Combine that with America's knee-jerk resort to violence and you have a military dictatorship in waiting. History proves that government has the power to eventually crush its citizens, especially government with the power of America's. The actions of the above CEO's did not support the American way. They weakened the fabric of trust that must exist in any peaceful culture. IMO America has lost the middle ground in which average citizens can relax in their homes knowing that society is stable. Even your average bureaucrat now sits at home fearful of his government. Something somewhere has to budge, or being American promises increasing incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Everything in moderation.

So you explain how people are fearing government, yet you support it expanding its power into health care? I don't see how that makes sense and I think you are only proving my point.

 

[dave]

Some posters seem to reply to every post with which they disagree politically by saying somebody's lying, often government. If somebody thinks the government is that misleading and untrustworthy, why even be American?

No, I am correcting your post in which you made obvious misstatements. You clearly did not read the web site with the Obama health care plan outline, nor did you read the additional information put out by the White House.

Of course, as an ideologue, you are not interested in facts.

 

[Dirk]

History proves that government has the power to eventually crush its citizens

*cough* Cuba

I am not sure how this supports your point here. You are blaming the collectivist, yet arguing for it.

I thought he was blaming the bosses for paying themselves obscene bonuses?

 

[myp]

I thought he was blaming the bosses for paying themselves obscene bonuses?

I am not sure what he was trying to say as he seemed to have conflicting arguments, so we'll wait for his response. If this is true though, then the question might become how did the money get there? From a collectivist movement by the government. It was collectivist policy and not individual policy.

 

[Dirk]

I am not sure what he was trying to say as he seemed to have conflicting arguments, so we'll wait for his response. If this is true though, then the question might become how did the money get there? From a collectivist movement by the government. It was collectivist policy and not individual policy.

I gathered he was arguing the bourgeoisie misspent it? :unsure:

I don't know - let's wait and see, as you say (in case i'm wrong).

 

[chuck schmidt]

I am not sure how this supports your point here. You are blaming the collectivist, yet arguing for it. Furthermore, the financial crisis was largely the unintended consequence of government acting collectively. The health care plan is just another attempt to move towards the collective from the individual.

?Blame?? I am not taking blame positions. That is juvenile, IMO.

Your paragraph attacks the wrong issue. Health care is the main topic, but you attacked my post on by suggesting that being anti-authority is central to being American. I am disagreeing with that position. America has matured beyond the rebellion stage where being anti-authority is central to being American.

These protests against the healthcare bill are not there without cause- they are there because this government continues to forget the underlying principle of the individual over the collective and in doing so it continues to rob us of our freedoms.

No. The protests are there because some people disagree with the concept of universal health care in the 21st Century. It is a fair political position, from the perspective that in politics it is ok to be for or against anything. As long as you don?t mind 20,000,000 + Americans having inadequate health care, and most of the rest having to balance their families? health with employee relations, it is even justifiable. After all, amongst the western democracies America can stand proudly beside South Africa as another example. Or used to be able to anyway.

Oh, I might be wrong. See

http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.co....re-for-sa&catid=44:developmentnews&Itemid=111 A draft bill on the NHI, which will combine the public and private health sectors, is expected in Parliament by December 2009.
Read more: http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.co....d=44:developmentnews&Itemid=111#ixzz0gWB4mJdX

I guess that leaves the US as the most undemocratic western state?

So you explain how people are fearing government, yet you support it expanding its power into health care? I don't see how that makes sense and I think you are only proving my point.

May I suggest your thinking is overly simplistic and mono-directional? I didn?t ?explain how? people fear government. I noted it as a fact. I think a paradigm change is needed by those inside and outside of government who fear each other. That can only start by admitting the fact and discussing it. As is happening here.