Page 90 of 143 FirstFirst ... 40808586878889909192939495100140 ... LastLast
Results 1,781 to 1,800 of 2855
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1781  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Where the problem lies is that your fear is unfounded as no nonpartisan interest has provided evidence to support the notion that "middle class folks who make too much to benefit from a public option but not enough to opt out and working class folks who already get great care from their employers". It just doesn't exist and is clearly not constructive to the overall interest of economic security and stability of our healthcare system. Our status quo is unsustainable and will break our backs.
    What I'm concerned about is history--meaning what history tells us about government programs. They promise one thing, but reality ends up being very different. Look at Social Security--its headed towards insolvency. Look at Medicare--same deal.

    We are hearing a lot of promises (which change day to day) about what things will cost and what benefits will come from this, but even the Government's own economic analysis disagrees with these claims.

    Let's take a very recent parallel example. The deficit projections. Well, they are 2 Trillion dollars higher than they stated only a few months ago. Why? Well, because they can't control things to make them what they wish. The promise to cut the deficit in half is dependent on many factors which they can't control even if they wanted to. Similarly, they can't control what will happen with the costs associated with healthcare either.

    Given that these government programs regularly have very significant cost overruns, it seems that these claims aren't credible. Unfortunately, what is promised doesn't end up being reality.

    I happen to think that there are other avenues that can better address the issue of skyrocketing prices, and that requires a willingness to consider all the issues, rather than pushing one ideological path be followed. That's essentially what I see happening.

    The status quo might be unsustainable, but I'm not willing to trade a bad situation for a worse one. The goal must be to find hard solutions, not rush to change hoping we won't go from the frying pan into the fire.

    Some people want to characterize this as "doing nothing" but that simply isn't the case. Congress isn't having an open debate where everyone can share ideas. The leadership of Congress is pushing various bills that aren't considering all the options.

    Isn't it worth finding the best solution possible?

    KAM
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1782  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Gee. Sounds to me like you said he was lying. When he said he wouldn't sign any bill that increased the deficit, when he said the bill didn't support care for illegals...if that has no "bearing on reality", that sure sound like lying to me. Like I said. There was nothing he could have said that you would have believed. End of story.
    Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension. Further, I elaborated on what I said, but you apparently aren't able to understand that either.

    KAM
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1783  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Oops....another politician from SC. While I agree with most that it was clearly inappropriate....I think he may have been correct. It appears that while Section 246 does prevent illegals from getting "affordability credits", it does not prevent them from enrolling under the public plan. Hopefully they can work that out and do exactly as Obama said and NOT allow illegals to be on the plan.
    Well, the President can say whatever he wants, but as I stated--the language that ends up in the final bill is what matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I still say the interesting part that is being over looked is the requirement to have EVERYONE enroll for healthcare. While I agree with this conceptually, I'm not on board with it on principle....I think that made sense. Anyway, Obama said it was irresponsible to allow some to not take coverage because it would raise all our costs as those people would still get treatment and their costs would be passed along to us. I agree with that outcome. Where I disagree is how the government can let people's "irresponsible" behavior come into play. If the government believes it is irresponsible to not take health coverage because it will increase our costs, then couldn't we reduce healthcare costs further by preventing people from smoking?....from eating junk food?....from sitting on their and not exercising?....from drinking alcohol (in excess)?.....from drinking too many soft drinks?.....aren't those irresponsible acts that increase our costs? These are activities which appear (correct me if I'm wrong doctor) to increase the likelyhood of health problems. Where do we stop on what the government deems as "irresponsible"?

    I'm stuck on this point because I think requiring everyone to have health coverage is conceptually good....but gets on that slippery slope of the government controlling our lives even further.
    Well, interesting. However, I don't think the government has any right to require people to buy health insurance. That is not their role, nor did the citizens grant them the power to make such demands on us.

    KAM
  4. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #1784  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Where I disagree is how the government can let people's "irresponsible" behavior come into play. If the government believes it is irresponsible to not take health coverage because it will increase our costs, then couldn't we reduce healthcare costs further by preventing people from smoking?....from eating junk food?....from sitting on their and not exercising?....from drinking alcohol (in excess)?.....from drinking too many soft drinks?.....aren't those irresponsible acts that increase our costs? These are activities which appear (correct me if I'm wrong doctor) to increase the likelyhood of health problems. Where do we stop on what the government deems as "irresponsible"?
    Only your physicians (or in today's practice: insurance/HMO bureaucrats) can determine whether you may be predisposed to major health consequences by living "irresponsibly". Many people can copy your lifestyle verbatim without the same ill effects you may show. What may be "likely" for you cannot be applied to another so effortlessly. Fair? Hardly! But, that's life and we all share responsibility, whether in the soft dollars we currently fork over to pay for the uninsured/under-insured or otherwise.
  5. #1785  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Only your physicians (or in today's practice: insurance/HMO bureaucrats) can determine whether you may be predisposed to major health consequences by living "irresponsibly". Many people can copy your lifestyle verbatim without the same ill effects you may show. What may be "likely" for you cannot be applied to another so effortlessly. Fair? Hardly! But, that's life and we all share responsibility, whether in the soft dollars we currently fork over to pay for the uninsured/under-insured or otherwise.
    I'm sorry....I have to comment here. While we do hear occasionally of the man or woman (normally a man, LOL) who dies at age 105 and smoked and drank almost every day of his life, I think that is likely very rare. I don't think anyone can say that smoking doesn't promote health problems in a very high percent of smokers. I don't smoke, you are right, and I am NOT saying to ban cigarettes. My only point was that this behavior, since it is a reason for many health problems, is irresponsible behavior as it relates to healthcare. I don't understand the behavior, but many people also don't understand why I swim 3500+ yards in the morning. Of course, my exercise behavior is far less likely to cause a health problem (go ahead doc, show a link that shows swimming is bad for you, LOL, I know it's coming) than smoking....so.....should I, or anyone else who doesn't smoke, be held accountable financially for this irresponsible health behavior? If not having health coverage is irresponsible, shouldn't smoking be irresponsible?
    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
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1786  
    Hello Everyone,

    I had a thought. Some have suggested that we simply give everyone health care coverage. While I think that ignores the fact that economics doesn't allow for such simplicity, I started thinking--is something like that possible.

    I came up with this. The government can issue a high-tech (meaning hard to falsify, and could also include other sorts of verification) identification to the poor--people who are verified as being needy and unable to handle their own insurance needs.

    This card would enable them to get whatever medical care they need at any hospital and any doctor or other medical care facility. How is it paid for? It isn't. Simply, the hospitals, doctors, nurses, technicians donate the costs to that person. When I say donate, I don't mean pass that cost onto someone else--that's what happens right now. They simply don't charge for it.

    If I was a doctor and someone came to my office with a severe cut, I can stitch it up, and not charge them right? Why bother with complicated systems of insurance or reimbursement. The cost is simply absorbed by the doctor.

    The Government can require that these people are treated exactly the same--they don't wait more, get different care, anything--they are treated exactly like a paying customer...except they just don't pay.

    At this point you might think I'm kidding. I'm not. I should point out that this really isn't my preference, but I'm attempting to address what others have suggested--just in a slightly different way. They've claimed that the problem is that sick people just can't get treatment. Well, this solves that very directly. They get treatment--as easily as any paying customer.

    Some of you who have an understanding of economics might be asking...but there's no such thing as a free lunch. Well, true, in reality the doctors, nurses and hospitals simply lose money from their profits. Some have stated that profit is a bad thing--that seeking profits in relation to medical care is the problem. Insurance companies seeking profit is bad, so why not apply the same logic to doctors.

    Now, of course I'm not saying they can't seek to profit from other patients--I believe in profit--it pays for many good things. Doctors deserve to make a living by selling their highly skilled services. What I'm saying is that this is simply a cost of doing business. They still can make a profit--it just might be significantly smaller.

    To mitigate the costs that these medical professionals will have to absorb, I suggest that they can write off 100% of those costs. So they might actually gain 25-35% (roughly) of those donated costs in tax benefits. So, a Doctor that donates a $150 office visit can write off $150 in income--meaning $150xtax rate is what they get. So, they really aren't working for free--just a reduced rate.

    This means the government needs to them pay ZERO for medical care for the poor. That's 300 Billion in savings right there. The loss of tax revenue from doctors (due to the suggested deductions) will of course reduce that savings a bit.

    Now, there are many questions here--how exactly does a business-any business absorb costs. Is that really important? We are currently asking all paying customers to absorb that cost, but that requires all sorts of complicated systems to spread that cost around. Why not keep it very direct and very simple.

    If that's too onerous, then instead why not just have taxpayers pay for the Direct MATERIAL costs--at cost with no markup. Meaning--the cost of the medication, needles, supplies, etc. Never pay for any SERVICE, just hard products. That way, the doctors aren't actually incurring hard losses, just losing time.

    As I said--this isn't my preference, but its really not too dissimilar from what others are suggestion--that we simply just pay for it. Well, why bother with a big unwieldy system when it can be done so much more simply by keeping those costs at the point of service.

    The only difference between this and what others are suggesting is in who pays.

    KAM
  7. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #1787  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I happen to think that there are other avenues that can better address the issue of skyrocketing prices, and that requires a willingness to consider all the issues, rather than pushing one ideological path be followed. That's essentially what I see happening.

    The status quo might be unsustainable, but I'm not willing to trade a bad situation for a worse one. The goal must be to find hard solutions, not rush to change hoping we won't go from the frying pan into the fire.

    Some people want to characterize this as "doing nothing" but that simply isn't the case. Congress isn't having an open debate where everyone can share ideas. The leadership of Congress is pushing various bills that aren't considering all the options.

    Isn't it worth finding the best solution possible?

    KAM
    Your argument is one easily taken because you have no comparison. If you want to talk healthcare economics, without the fear tactics, by comparing the projected cost of one such plan at $900B spread over 10 years, carefully implemented over several years, versus the current cost of you, me, and everyone else funding the cost of providing healthcare at its current rate of escalation to the uninsured/under-insured, then maybe a real discussion can be had. Until then, this is simply politicizing an issue, unlike any other, that has the capacity to break this country's back.

    Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, yours is the position of the Republican party and thus there is no genuine engagement of the problem. Impractical escapades of fantasy simply do not count as constructive.
  8. #1788  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I'm sorry....I have to comment here. While we do hear occasionally of the man or woman (normally a man, LOL) who dies at age 105 and smoked and drank almost every day of his life, I think that is likely very rare. I don't think anyone can say that smoking doesn't promote health problems in a very high percent of smokers. I don't smoke, you are right, and I am NOT saying to ban cigarettes. My only point was that this behavior, since it is a reason for many health problems, is irresponsible behavior as it relates to healthcare. I don't understand the behavior, but many people also don't understand why I swim 3500+ yards in the morning. Of course, my exercise behavior is far less likely to cause a health problem (go ahead doc, show a link that shows swimming is bad for you, LOL, I know it's coming) than smoking....so.....should I, or anyone else who doesn't smoke, be held accountable financially for this irresponsible health behavior? If not having health coverage is irresponsible, shouldn't smoking be irresponsible?
    I agree with you on the exception cases. They are are very rare, but my wife's grandmother was one of them. I think she was 90 when I first met her. She lived on a diet of canned sardines in olive oil and loved hot peppers and cranberries. What a diet. Then to top it off, she would have 1 to 2 shots of bourbon every evening. She died when she 98. I remember her funeral card said born 1898, and I thought wow, she was born in the 1800's.

    On the topic of smoking, what would happen to the South Carolina economy if everyone quit smoking? Isn't tobacco the main product produced in South Carolina? I once heard that if South Carolina was given all the tobacco taxes collected by the gov't, states and cities, for it's tobacco, South Carolina would be the richest place in the world.
    Last edited by palandri; 09/10/2009 at 09:43 AM.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1789  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Your argument is one easily taken because you have no comparison. If you want to talk healthcare economics, without the fear tactics, by comparing the projected cost of one such plan at $900B spread over 10 years, carefully implemented over several years, versus the current cost of you, me, and everyone else funding the cost of providing healthcare at its current rate of escalation to the uninsured/under-insured, then maybe a real discussion can be had. Until then, this is simply politicizing an issue, unlike any other, that has the capacity to break this country's back.

    Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, yours is the position of the Republican party and thus there is no genuine engagement of the problem. Impractical escapades of fantasy simply do not count as constructive.
    You know--you are the second person accusing me of 'politicizing' this issue. I'm not a politician, I don't belong to any political party or organization of any kind, nor do I belong to an insurance company, etc. For me to politicize something, I'd have to have some stake in politics wouldn't I? I don't. I'm not involved in the political process, except as a citizen.

    Can I ask you nicely to not start throwing unfounded accusations at me, so we can discuss this constructively?

    I'd ask that you make some attempt to understand the positions I've espoused before you declare what my view is. I can't expect you to know this, but you should ask before you declare my views invalid. From what you've said, it doesn't seem that you are aware of the things I advocate. Perhaps you are, but your post doesn't seem to indicate that.

    As far as breaking this countries back--right, so its important to not rush into a system that Government entities are claiming will greatly increase the deficit. It sounds like you are dismissing this concern, and choosing to believe that the current plans will be more beneficial. I have no reason to believe that is true.

    If you want to have a discussion about the details, I'm happy to do that.

    Actually, I do have a comparison. Medicare is one example--no one who originally proposed it planned to have it become insolvent, but that is exactly where it is heading. Why would I expect a similar type of system to not have the same dangers? I can't say this WILL happen, but I'm not willing to assume that it won't. We need solid economics behind this, and details that deal with these possibilities.

    You mentioned breaking the back of this country. Well, that's exactly what social security costs are headed for. The plan was flawed, and as such it is failing. Costs will rise if people are to get their benefits, and that has a very good chance of bankrupting this nation. That's not a scare tactic--that's an economic reality. You can't ignore this and hope it works out.

    The money for Healthcare and social security has to come from somewhere, and merely shifting it to government control isn't going to create more money.

    Let's not pretend that if we simply pass this legislation that things will just work out. As of now, the numbers (not my numbers, but the governments OWN numbers) do not add up.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/10/2009 at 09:33 AM. Reason: Additional point
  10. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #1790  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I agree with you on the exception cases. They are are very rare, but my wife's grandmother was one of them. I think she was 90 when I first met her. She lived on a diet of canned sardines in olive oil and loved hot peppers and cranberries. What a diet. Then to top it off, she would have 1 to 2 shots of bourbon every evening. She died when she 98. I remember her funeral card said born 1898, and I thought wow, she was born in the 1800's.

    On the topic of smoking, what would happen to the South Carolina economy if everyone quit smoking? Isn't tobacco the main product produced in South Carolina? I once heard that if South Carolina was given all the taxes collected by the gov't, states and cities, South Carolina would be the richest place in the world.
    That's exactly the point. The example he conjures up is just that, the exception. What is far too easily overlooked is the "fat middle" where the variance in health quality, with and without lifestyle similarities, is as varied as personality types.
  11. #1791  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I'm sorry....I have to comment here. While we do hear occasionally of the man or woman (normally a man, LOL) who dies at age 105 and smoked and drank almost every day of his life, I think that is likely very rare. I don't think anyone can say that smoking doesn't promote health problems in a very high percent of smokers. I don't smoke, you are right, and I am NOT saying to ban cigarettes. My only point was that this behavior, since it is a reason for many health problems, is irresponsible behavior as it relates to healthcare. I don't understand the behavior, but many people also don't understand why I swim 3500+ yards in the morning. Of course, my exercise behavior is far less likely to cause a health problem (go ahead doc, show a link that shows swimming is bad for you, LOL, I know it's coming) than smoking....so.....should I, or anyone else who doesn't smoke, be held accountable financially for this irresponsible health behavior? If not having health coverage is irresponsible, shouldn't smoking be irresponsible?
    Nope, since I swim, I'm not aware that it's bad, unless there are sharks around. I am devoutly antismoking. However, when it comes to specifics, most people overestimate the absolute risk of smoking, that is the risk to any one individual over time. If I asked you to tell me how many smokers would die of lung cancer if I followed 100,000 of them for forty years, how many would you guess? Most people don't come close. The fact is that the risk of dying of lung cancer is almost twice as high in smokers as in non-smokers....but the risk in non-smokers is very low, so twice that risk is less than you might think. In a British study, there were around 200 deaths per 100,000 over that time period. That's about .2% of all smokers died of lung cancer over forty years. Now considerably more died of heart disease, and there's the important issue of secondhand smoke, and I'm not saying smoking is good for you, but those are the kind of facts that you need in order to prioritize what you want to spend your money on in terms of prevention. The fact is that the public, and doctors in some studies, make these kind of overestimates all the time. Decisions about health care need to made based on data, not on what's politically correct. For instance, everyone wants to provide mammograms, and it would be political suicide to suggest they not be provided. But in fact, performing mammograms on 1000 women will possibly save one life from breast cancer (over a five year period) above and beyond what lives would be saved in patients who did not get mammograms. In exchange for that one life, 200 women will get biopsies. Fifteen of those biopsies will be positive, which means that 185 women will be exposed to the stress and cost of a biopsy that will be negative. Around 7 of the fifteen women with cancer will die. If you took 1000 women and provided normal care without mammograms, again 15 women would have cancer, and about 8 would die from it. In terms of costs, very few mammograms would be done in this population and the cancers would likely be diagnosed later, but the end result is not really very different. These kinds of decisions are very complicated and end up being political, unfortunately, when they should be based on science and reasoning. That is why politics should be kept out of these decisions, and out of medicine entirely in an ideal world.
    Last edited by davidra; 09/10/2009 at 09:54 AM.
  12. #1792  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I agree with you on the exception cases. They are are very rare, but my wife's grandmother was one of them. I think she was 90 when I first met her. She lived on a diet of canned sardines in olive oil and loved hot peppers and cranberries. What a diet. Then to top it off, she would have 1 to 2 shots of bourbon every evening. She died when she 98. I remember her funeral card said born 1898, and I thought wow, she was born in the 1800's.

    On the topic of smoking, what would happen to the South Carolina economy if everyone quit smoking? Isn't tobacco the main product produced in South Carolina? I once heard that if South Carolina was given all the tobacco taxes collected by the gov't, states and cities, for it's tobacco, South Carolina would be the richest place in the world.
    Yes....tobacco is our top crop....no doubt....and I'm not advocating making tobacco illegal (I thought I made that clear). I've often heard that even if cigarettes were made illegal in the US, there are enough smokers in China alone to offset the loss....they would just have to get their product over there. So tobacco could still be grown if that were to happen (unlikely, the government gets toooo much tax dollars from smoking) but farmers could also grow other crops. I mean, I am NOT a farmer (despite going to Clemson) but I believe you can plant other crops in soil that once grew tobacco, correct?
    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
  13. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #1793  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You know--you are the second person accusing me of 'politicizing' this issue. I'm not a politician, I don't belong to any political party or organization of any kind, nor do I belong to an insurance company, etc. For me to politicize something, I'd have to have some stake in politics wouldn't I? I don't. I'm not involved in the political process, except as a citizen.
    One needn't be a politician, or person with a stake in politics, to politicize an issue.

    I'd ask that you make some attempt to understand the positions I've espoused before you declare what my view is. I can't expect you to know this, but you should ask before you declare my views invalid. From what you've said, it doesn't seem that you are aware of the things I advocate. Perhaps you are, but your post doesn't seem to indicate that.
    One needn't "ask" anything when your positions are plainly expressed for all to read. No mystery there. Just as you make an assessment of others' views, yours are no exception, which is fair enough.

    If you want to have a discussion about the details, I'm happy to do that.
    When there can be simple agreement on the fundamentals, there can be a real discussion. Getting into "details" is not only premature, where some positions taken are that there is nothing urgently wrong with our healthcare economics, but only invites the very politicization and fear-mongering shown in this thread. Just read the thread title, for a perfect example.

    Actually, I do have a comparison. Medicare is one example--no one who originally proposed it planned to have it become insolvent, but that is exactly where it is heading. Why would I expect a similar type of system to not have the same dangers? I can't say this WILL happen, but I'm not willing to assume that it won't. We need solid economics behind this, and details that deal with these possibilities.
    Actually, no you don't. What you have is fear, without data, based on anecdotal beliefs. When you want to talk about the current costs of treating the uninsured/under-insured and its skyrocketing costs to every member of our society, including businesses small and large, then a constructive discussion can be had. You already pay for the uninsured/under-insured to receive treatment. Only in the real world, they are seen too late when their health has already significantly declined, forcing higher cost tests and treatments to be employed. That is the only apples-to-apples comparison that focuses on the actual problem at hand.
  14. #1794  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    That's exactly the point. The example he conjures up is just that, the exception. What is far too easily overlooked is the "fat middle" where the variance in health quality, with and without lifestyle similarities, is as varied as personality types.
    Well....you missed my point....I was just using smoking as one example....but since you brought up the "fat middle", there is yet another example. Okay doc....since I stand corrected and apparently smoking is now good for you (geez, at least you agreed that swimming isn't going to kill me), or really not a big deal (can we take that warning off the cigarettes boxes now?), how about junk food and the weight that people put on from eating junk food and not exercising? Is it irresponsible to weigh 300 lbs if you are 6'0"? How about 350 lbs? Heck, how about 250 lbs? Will you agree that obesity in the US is a problem and causes health problems vs being in better health? I'm not saying that non-smoker who eat well and exercise and aren't overweight aren't going to have health issues....I DID NOT SAY THAT.....my point is all these things can be considered "irresponsible" if not having health coverage is also irresponsible as Obama said. I'm not even disagreeing with him on that statement....I feel it is irresponsible to go without health coverage if you can afford it....but I'm also saying that there are other irresponsible behaviors that also cause additional health costs.

    This study shows that obesity costs us $147 billion dollars a year: Obesity Healthcare Costs US 147 Billion Dollars A Year, New Study To use Obama's comment, this is not a "silver bullet", but if you add up all these areas, we are talking really serious dollars (not that $147 billion is chump change).

    Now....I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REQUIRE EVERYONE TO EXERCISE.....I believe in people deciding what they want to eat, if they want to exercise, if they want to smoke, if they want to drink too much. I'm just saying from a healthcare perspective, these behaviors could be consider "irresponsible".
    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
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1795  
    Hello Everyone,

    Despite the fact that I didn't accuse the President of lying, AP has a story 'fact checking' the President's speech.

    The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge

    It agrees with some claims and disagrees with others. I'll not endorse any of the statements there at this point however. It is just one independent assessment of the speech.

    One snippet that is relevant to some claims stated here however is:

    OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

    THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

    ....

    That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.
    Partial Entry

    So, any claims that this issue is a concern are "fantasy" are in disagreement with the AP at least--not that it should be THE authority, rather it is evidence this isn't a fabrication as some have suggested.

    KAM
  16. #1796  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....you missed my point....I was just using smoking as one example....but since you brought up the "fat middle", there is yet another example. Okay doc....since I stand corrected and apparently smoking is now good for you (geez, at least you agreed that swimming isn't going to kill me), or really not a big deal (can we take that warning off the cigarettes boxes now?), how about junk food and the weight that people put on from eating junk food and not exercising? Is it irresponsible to weigh 300 lbs if you are 6'0"? How about 350 lbs? Heck, how about 250 lbs? Will you agree that obesity in the US is a problem and causes health problems vs being in better health? I'm not saying that non-smoker who eat well and exercise and aren't overweight aren't going to have health issues....I DID NOT SAY THAT.....my point is all these things can be considered "irresponsible" if not having health coverage is also irresponsible as Obama said. I'm not even disagreeing with him on that statement....I feel it is irresponsible to go without health coverage if you can afford it....but I'm also saying that there are other irresponsible behaviors that also cause additional health costs.

    This study shows that obesity costs us $147 billion dollars a year: Obesity Healthcare Costs US 147 Billion Dollars A Year, New Study To use Obama's comment, this is not a "silver bullet", but if you add up all these areas, we are talking really serious dollars (not that $147 billion is chump change).

    Now....I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REQUIRE EVERYONE TO EXERCISE.....I believe in people deciding what they want to eat, if they want to exercise, if they want to smoke, if they want to drink too much. I'm just saying from a healthcare perspective, these behaviors could be consider "irresponsible".
    You'll notice that this study was done by AHRQ, which I've referenced before. So given this expenditure, which I agree is excessive, tell me exactly what you would do about it? We want to save money and decrease health care costs, right? Where does personal responsibility take over, and how much should society do to protect people against themselves? And before you fall all over yourself saying that government shouldn't be involved in that, it is every day through the FDA, NHTSA, the FAA...

    Instead of just pointing out the problem, what is your solution? You realize that if people with smoking related health problems don't buy insurance, society will end up paying for them anyway, it will just cost more because they will be sicker when they finally get treatment. Let's hear some specific recommendations.
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1797  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Now....I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REQUIRE EVERYONE TO EXERCISE.....I believe in people deciding what they want to eat, if they want to exercise, if they want to smoke, if they want to drink too much. I'm just saying from a healthcare perspective, these behaviors could be consider "irresponsible".
    Isn't this a non-issue if people are left to be responsible for their own actions, and the consequences of them? Its really harsh to say "well, *****, you smoked 3 packs and day and that helped to destroy your health--its your responsibility to pay for it." But isn't that what responsibility is about? But what's the alternative? Do we just pay for other people being irresponsible, or do we curtail their freedom to choose to be irresponsible?

    Neither is compatible with a free society. No one should be forced to pay for other people's bad behavior, and government shouldn't be in the business of determining an individual's personal choices.

    KAM
  18. #1798  
    And in your mind addiction is "bad behavior" and represents a weakness in moral fiber that anyone should be able to control? You clearly don't see it as a disease then, is that right?
  19. #1799  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You'll notice that this study was done by AHRQ, which I've referenced before. So given this expenditure, which I agree is excessive, tell me exactly what you would do about it? We want to save money and decrease health care costs, right? Where does personal responsibility take over, and how much should society do to protect people against themselves? And before you fall all over yourself saying that government shouldn't be involved in that, it is every day through the FDA, NHTSA, the FAA...

    Instead of just pointing out the problem, what is your solution? You realize that if people with smoking related health problems don't buy insurance, society will end up paying for them anyway, it will just cost more because they will be sicker when they finally get treatment. Let's hear some specific recommendations.
    Grrrrrrr...LOL....that's my point doc! Where do we draw the line???? I think you agreed with me (don't worry, we won't tell anyone) that obesity (or rather, the effects of obesity) is a major drain on healthcare....so isn't it irresponsible to allow yourself to get this way? And isn't it irresponsible to go without healthcare coverage? Do you see my point yet? LOL I don't think we can make anyone practice a healthy living....so why should we make anyone buy something? I'm just saying I see a flaw in his logic, that's all.
    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
  20. #1800  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Isn't this a non-issue if people are left to be responsible for their own actions, and the consequences of them? Its really harsh to say "well, *****, you smoked 3 packs and day and that helped to destroy your health--its your responsibility to pay for it." But isn't that what responsibility is about? But what's the alternative? Do we just pay for other people being irresponsible, or do we curtail their freedom to choose to be irresponsible?

    Neither is compatible with a free society. No one should be forced to pay for other people's bad behavior, and government shouldn't be in the business of determining an individual's personal choices.

    KAM
    I think we're on the same page here.....right?
    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

Posting Permissions