Page 135 of 143 FirstFirst ... 3585125130131132133134135136137138139140 ... LastLast
Results 2,681 to 2,700 of 2855
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2681  
    Hello Everyone,

    Here's an article discussing the costs of the Healthcare plans

    Paul Ryan v. the President - WSJ.com

    Excerpt:
    At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions—families, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one.

    Mr. Obama's fiscal assertions are possible only because of the fraudulent accounting and budget gimmicks that Democrats spent months calibrating. Readers can find the gory details in Mr. Ryan's pre-emptive rebuttal nearby, though one of the most egregious deceptions is that the bill counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending.


    AND

    Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the "nonpartisan, independent" authority of CBO, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end.
    End Excerpts

    The issue being discussed here is important to consider, because it strikes directly at the claims that this will "save" money. I don't claim to understand all the details, but here's the bottom line. From the outset, this "reform" was sold as a means to "Address the rising costs of healthcare." If it fails to do that, then it is a failure at best, and fraud at worst.

    Beware of politicians promises--they rarely are what they claim to be.

    KAM
  2. #2682  
    As far as I knew the wait times for elective/non emergency procedures in Canada had mostly to do with budgetary considerations. In order to provide world class medical care to all, for a reasonable price, wait times for many (non critical) things are increased when compared directly to the USA. In most situations I was involved in this was not an issue and certainly emergency/time sensitive procedures did not get held up.

    Would American's go to the doctor more unnecessarily if they had a public system? Do Canadian's do that now? Good questions, which I'm thinking would be hard to answer definitively.

    That said comparing things to Canada is likely unfair. The population, geographic and cultural differences make for two completely different animals. What works well for one may not be appropriate for the other despite seemingly similar societies.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2683  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    As far as I knew the wait times for elective/non emergency procedures in Canada had mostly to do with budgetary considerations. In order to provide world class medical care to all, for a reasonable price, wait times for many (non critical) things are increased when compared directly to the USA. In most situations I was involved in this was not an issue and certainly emergency/time sensitive procedures did not get held up.
    But of course there is that recent example about that Canadian politician. Not saying that is the definitive example however.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Would American's go to the doctor more unnecessarily if they had a public system? Do Canadian's do that now? Good questions, which I'm thinking would be hard to answer definitively.
    Well, speaking for myself I wouldn't, but apparently there have been studies that showed that is exactly what happened. Would it happen over a nationwide group? I do not know. What we do know is that cost is a barrier, and while some would say it shouldn't be, I think there is a very good reason for that. When something is "free" it tends to be taken for granted, and not conserved. The same really goes for "cheap" as well as "free." That's basic economics. The question is how far this extends towards using whatever service there is unnecessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    That said comparing things to Canada is likely unfair. The population, geographic and cultural differences make for two completely different animals. What works well for one may not be appropriate for the other despite seemingly similar societies.
    Yes, and I would add, there are other factors as well--including other world obligations. That being said--it seems that the US still spends more of its government budget (as a percentage...and total dollars of course) than does Canada. But for whatever reason, these massive expenditures still can't cover those people without health insurance.

    I read that Canadian Doctors on average are paid about half what American Doctors are. I wonder if that is true. Do you have any knowledge of this?

    KAM
  4. #2684  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I read that Canadian Doctors on average are paid about half what American Doctors are. I wonder if that is true. Do you have any knowledge of this?
    KAM
    Interesting.....my wife's experience is completely the opposite in her area of expertise (Microbiology). But then we have also experienced that the more prestigious the institution the less they feel they need to pay.

    If we take the example of the average Alberta family physician. They would bill the Crown for about 230k (Canadian $$)/per year before expenses (on average). Here in STL billings seem to be 3/4 to 1/2 of that. If you add the cost of an American medical degree you aren't making much money after student loan payments.

    I'd venture to say that specialized surgeons and other similar docs are likely paid much better in the USA as you don't have the Crown dictating what you will earn for each procedure. Rather it's a mix of market prices, insurance companies and government.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  5. #2685  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, and I would add, there are other factors as well--including other world obligations. That being said--it seems that the US still spends more of its government budget (as a percentage...and total dollars of course) than does Canada. But for whatever reason, these massive expenditures still can't cover those people without health insurance.
    Your quite right. I think Canada's contribution in Afghanistan is about 4k troops (and a few Mounties)? This is all that they can afford without running a deficit. The USA is obviously got that and much more going on.

    A random sample of Internet statistics agree....as a % of GDP and per capita the USA spends more. Despite this there is constant criticism in Canada that the public system is still to wasteful, which I suppose is inevitable.

    Given the USA's higher population density, lack of remote communities (save a few in Alaska) and current funding levels, something better than Canada's system should be easily achievable one would think.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2686  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Interesting.....my wife's experience is completely the opposite in her area of expertise (Microbiology). But then we have also experienced that the more prestigious the institution the less they feel they need to pay.

    If we take the example of the average Alberta family physician. They would bill the Crown for about 230k (Canadian $$)/per year before expenses (on average). Here in STL billings seem to be 3/4 to 1/2 of that. If you add the cost of an American medical degree you aren't making much money after student loan payments.

    I'd venture to say that specialized surgeons and other similar docs are likely paid much better in the USA as you don't have the Crown dictating what you will earn for each procedure. Rather it's a mix of market prices, insurance companies and government.
    I was just reading the wikipedia article (for what its worth) on Canadian Doctors, and it states that Alberta has the highest at $230,000 with Quebec at the lowest $165,000, average being $202,000.
    Another article I saw said that Canadian Doctors were around 100k lower than US.

    You bring up another good point--the cost of Medical school (or all schooling for that matter). A whole discussion on education reform should probably take place in this country too.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2687  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Your quite right. I think Canada's contribution in Afghanistan is about 4k troops (and a few Mounties)? This is all that they can afford without running a deficit. The USA is obviously got that and much more going on.
    Even before you consider active military actions, those expenditures are very different. Canada and the US have different roles in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    A random sample of Internet statistics agree....as a % of GDP and per capita the USA spends more. Despite this there is constant criticism in Canada that the public system is still to wasteful, which I suppose is inevitable.
    Well, whether it is wasteful or not objectively I do not know, but it certainly doesn't seem as wasteful as the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Given the USA's higher population density, lack of remote communities (save a few in Alaska) and current funding levels, something better than Canada's system should be easily achievable one would think.
    Well, one should at least ask the question why we are spending so much--just considering the government alone, before one considers private expenditures, and why our return is so poor. I'd suggest that healthcare spending in the US is as inefficient and wasteful as most other spending--why? Good question--one that needs to be answered, but never is.

    KAM
  8. #2688  
    It's interesting to note that Quebec doctors are so low. Quebec is easily the most socialistic of all Provinces so there must be a correlation there. Alberta is best described as the most conservative area of Canada.

    Canadian university education is also subsidized. Generally speaking prices and quality are similar across the entire country. Undergrad tuition here in STL @ wash-U is about 40k per year. My wife's last degree (PhD) at the University of Alberta was about 5k/year I think. That is certainly a bit different.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I was just reading the Wikipedia article (for what its worth) on Canadian Doctors, and it states that Alberta has the highest at $230,000 with Quebec at the lowest $165,000, average being $202,000.
    Another article I saw said that Canadian Doctors were around 100k lower than US.

    You bring up another good point--the cost of Medical school (or all schooling for that matter). A whole discussion on education reform should probably take place in this country too.

    KAM
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2689  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    It's interesting to note that Quebec doctors are so low. Quebec is easily the most socialistic of all Provinces so there must be a correlation there. Alberta is best described as the most conservative area of Canada.

    Canadian university education is also subsidized. Generally speaking prices and quality are similar across the entire country. Undergrad tuition here in STL @ wash-U is about 40k per year. My wife's last degree (PhD) at the University of Alberta was about 5k/year I think. That is certainly a bit different.
    Is the difference between Quebec and Alberta perhaps supply and demand? I don't know much about either, but I am under the impression that Quebec is akin to New York vs Alberta's Wyoming.

    I wonder how much Professors in Canada are paid compared to US.

    KAM
  10. #2690  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Is the difference between Quebec and Alberta perhaps supply and demand? I don't know much about either, but I am under the impression that Quebec is akin to New York vs Alberta's Wyoming.

    I wonder how much Professors in Canada are paid compared to US.
    KAM
    Quebec is the second most populated Province/Territory (after ON) and Alberta is 4th. Additionally Alberta has been (last 10 years) the richest and faster growing area of Canada. So the Wyoming comparison doesn't quite work.

    When we left Alberta it was struggling to keep up with healthcare demand due to that fact that growth was outpacing the Crown's ability to hirer staff, build new hospitals, etc....all that despite 15 billion dollar yearly budget surpluses. Complex issue at any rate.

    The Crown is always trying to balance demand and quality of care with fiscal responsibility. For instance Alberta is no longer running 15 billion dollar yearly budget surpluses now that oil prices are down. Growth is also comparatively down as is the growing demand for healthcare. A free maket healthcare system would have likely handled the peaks better but I wonder what prices would have been like?
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2691  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Quebec is the second most populated Province/Territory (after ON) and Alberta is 4th. Additionally Alberta has been (last 10 years) the richest and faster growing area of Canada. So the Wyoming comparison doesn't quite work.
    Perhaps Colorado then? The comparison I was trying to make was between our Eastern (urban) and Western (less urban) States.
    I'm suggesting that perhaps there might be a higher concentration of doctors in some places than others, which might influence salaries.

    Conservative Province, richer and faster growing eh? Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    When we left Alberta it was struggling to keep up with healthcare demand due to that fact that growth was outpacing the Crown's ability to hirer staff, build new hospitals, etc....all that despite 15 billion dollar yearly budget surpluses. Complex issue at any rate.
    Sure, especially as things are transitioning/growing.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    The Crown is always trying to balance demand and quality of care with fiscal responsibility. For instance Alberta is no longer running 15 billion dollar yearly budget surpluses now that oil prices are down. Growth is also comparatively down as is the growing demand for healthcare. A free maket healthcare system would have likely handled the peaks better but I wonder what prices would have been like?
    Well, I can't say that a Free Market price will always be lower, because some times supply and demand says it should be high. Shortages in most anything equals higher prices in a free market. The other side of that is that when prices are high, it will attract more supply, leading to this constant drive towards balance between supply and cost.

    KAM
  12. #2692  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Perhaps Colorado then? The comparison I was trying to make was between our Eastern (urban) and Western (less urban) States.
    I'm suggesting that perhaps there might be a higher concentration of doctors in some places than others, which might influence salaries.

    Conservative Province, richer and faster growing eh? Interesting.
    You have to keep in mind that Conservative in Canada and Conservative in the USA don't equate to the same thing. Most Canadian Conservatives (who form a minority government right now federally) view Republican politics as amazing craziness. In Canada you have to shift everything to the left (by a large amount). Even Democrats are more conservative than Canadian Liberals (viewed as centralest in Canada).

    That might help explain our heathcare policy differences.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2693  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    You have to keep in mind that Conservative in Canada and Conservative in the USA don't equate to the same thing. Most Canadian Conservatives (who form a minority government right now federally) view Republican politics as amazing craziness. In Canada you have to shift everything to the left (by a large amount). Even Democrats are more conservative than Canadian Liberals (viewed as centralest in Canada).

    That might help explain our heathcare policy differences.
    Yes, I do understand that is the case. The contrast was intended to be within the Canadian Spectrum.

    KAM
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2694  
    Hello Everyone,

    daThomas forwarded the "Trust me" line of reasoning yesterday, which I reject based on knowledge of history. But it brings up an interesting point in regards to this process, which is largely an exercise within the Democrat Party.

    "Trust us" is exactly what house Democrats are being asked to do in following this Reconciliation path. "Trust" that you'll get what isn't in the bill that they would have to vote for (the Senate Bill). Here's a real possibility however: Reconciliation really does not allow for more than a specific type of thing, and many of those differences between the House and Senate bills may not fall within the rules. So, what could happen? Something comes up which is outside of the Byrd rule, and the Senate Democrats just shrug and say "Oops, sorry--its outside of the rules, can't do it. Sorry house members who trusted us." Oh and don't worry--We'll remember you fondly when you lose your seat because of this.

    Now, screwing your own party members like that would normally be seen as a really bad move, but given what Speaker Pelosi has saying--essentially telling her members to fall on their swords for her benefit, this seems very possible. Clearly, President Obama is willing to let others take the fall in the upcoming elections--just so long as he can get this passed. So, if I were a House Democrat, I'd be very wary of "Trust me."

    Of course, none of this should be surprising, having seen the basest level of politics that has been going on with this "Reform."

    KAM
  15. #2695  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    daThomas forwarded the "Trust me" line of reasoning yesterday, which I reject based on knowledge of history. But it brings up an interesting point in regards to this process, which is largely an exercise within the Democrat Party.

    "Trust us" is exactly what house Democrats are being asked to do in following this Reconciliation path. "Trust" that you'll get what isn't in the bill that they would have to vote for (the Senate Bill). Here's a real possibility however: Reconciliation really does not allow for more than a specific type of thing, and many of those differences between the House and Senate bills may not fall within the rules. So, what could happen? Something comes up which is outside of the Byrd rule, and the Senate Democrats just shrug and say "Oops, sorry--its outside of the rules, can't do it. Sorry house members who trusted us." Oh and don't worry--We'll remember you fondly when you lose your seat because of this.

    Now, screwing your own party members like that would normally be seen as a really bad move, but given what Speaker Pelosi has saying--essentially telling her members to fall on their swords for her benefit, this seems very possible. Clearly, President Obama is willing to let others take the fall in the upcoming elections--just so long as he can get this passed. So, if I were a House Democrat, I'd be very wary of "Trust me."

    Of course, none of this should be surprising, having seen the basest level of politics that has been going on with this "Reform."

    KAM
    First mistake....taking anything from daThomas as worthy of reading. Just saying....
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. #2696  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    daThomas forwarded the "Trust me" line of reasoning yesterday, which I reject based on knowledge of history. But it brings up an interesting point in regards to this process, which is largely an exercise within the Democrat Party.

    "Trust us" is exactly what house Democrats are being asked to do in following this Reconciliation path. "Trust" that you'll get what isn't in the bill that they would have to vote for (the Senate Bill). Here's a real possibility however: Reconciliation really does not allow for more than a specific type of thing, and many of those differences between the House and Senate bills may not fall within the rules. So, what could happen? Something comes up which is outside of the Byrd rule, and the Senate Democrats just shrug and say "Oops, sorry--its outside of the rules, can't do it. Sorry house members who trusted us." Oh and don't worry--We'll remember you fondly when you lose your seat because of this.

    Now, screwing your own party members like that would normally be seen as a really bad move, but given what Speaker Pelosi has saying--essentially telling her members to fall on their swords for her benefit, this seems very possible. Clearly, President Obama is willing to let others take the fall in the upcoming elections--just so long as he can get this passed. So, if I were a House Democrat, I'd be very wary of "Trust me."

    Of course, none of this should be surprising, having seen the basest level of politics that has been going on with this "Reform."

    KAM
    Fact is, 2010 is going to be a kick out the incumbent election period, but if the Dems don't deliver on health care reform it will be a blood bath for them.

    Of course, Repubs are crowing about how passing health care reform will hurt the Dems, however at the same time they're doing everything they can to obstruct it (did you get your robo-call today?), those two seem contradictory.
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2697  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Fact is, 2010 is going to be a kick out the incumbent election period, but if the Dems don't deliver on health care reform it will be a blood bath for them.
    I agree that it is going to be an anti-incumbent year.
    As to your theory about bloodbath if they DON'T pass it--well, that depends on who you are talking about. NOT passing healthcare isn't going to harm Democrats in moderate districts, because independents who tend to be fiscally conservative, aren't hot on this idea.
    Democrats in Leftist districts might lose some of their leftist base, but so what--they aren't in danger anyway.
    Democrats in Conservative districts...they pass this they are screwed.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Of course, Repubs are crowing about how passing health care reform will hurt the Dems, however at the same time they're doing everything they can to obstruct it (did you get your robo-call today?), those two seem contradictory.
    I haven't gotten any Robo-calls on this ever.
    It is true--the Republicans are playing both sides of this--warning (accurately I think) that these Democrats are in trouble for their support of this, but leaving out that they are no matter what. They are trying to stop the bill, and betting they will beat them anyway.

    Well, I think what Republicans are doing is trying to convince the "moderate" democrats that they are signing their own death warrant, which they are (again depending on district), but in reality--these guys are pretty much in trouble no matter what happens. Personally, I think that at this point, the damage is done.

    What these guys now have to fear is that they are seen as part of the problem--the "Washington crowd" that relates to the anti-incumbent sentiment you mention. The closer they are associated with this disaster of a process (regardless of what you think about the actual bill), the more likely you are to suffer harm.

    In reality, "moderate" Democrats have been thrown under the bus by their leftist leadership and are in a no-win situation here. They've orchestrated a trap which has an excellent chance of harming their chances at re-election no matter what happens, and as I said--much of that damage is already done.

    The independents are going to swing the election this year one way or the other, and given that independents aren't at all hot on this "reform" deal, NOT passing it would tend to be less damaging for these Democrats who aren't in safe districts.

    KAM
  18. #2698  
    Once this is passed and people realize how beneficial and moderate it is, it's more likely than not to garner "independent" voters.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2699  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Once this is passed and people realize how beneficial and moderate it is, it's more likely than not to garner "independent" voters.
    Only because they've been worn down into submission
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #2700  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Only because they've been worn down into submission
    Actually I think it will be more of a realization that all the Repub "Sky is falling! Sky is falling!" was blowing smoke.

Posting Permissions