taltamir

Join Date 01/2006

+34

Prove that you can run nationalized healthcare, fix Medicare and Medicaid

Why are people pretending that we have never tried socialized medicine in the USA? We have medicare and medicaid, both of which are bankrupt.

Comrade Obama, you want us to trust in you to nationalize healthcare? You claim it will work? Prove it by fixing medicare and medicaid first. Prove it by doing it in a single state and have it work (two states tried socialized medicine, it was a failure in both).

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Arty was kind enough to provide a link on another thread. If you check out the graph with the distribution by GDP you can see what a monster entitlement spending has become.

For a comparison here's a link to 1974, under the column Fed (2) go to the bottom and click on the pie chart icon (a small window will open). You can look at other years as well if you so choose.

Tal you hit the nail on the head. Fix the messes that are already made before plunging into another.

In case you can't open the links above here's a break down:

Percent of budget 1974 2008

Defense 37% 21%

Social Security (pensions) 22% 21%

Medicare (health) 9% 23%

Of course the GDP has increased over the years. By showing percents spent it removes skewing the numbers. So while we did spend more physical money on defense, we spend less now (in a hot war) as a percentage than 1974. Social Security is interest. The total percentage decreased. What does that mean? Benefits are lagging. Heath care (Medicaid and Medicare) are astonishing, the percentage has more than doubled, It is even more dramatic when you consider the government took in $475.1 billion in 1974 to todays $1.2 trillion in 2008.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+350

If it were really about healthcare and its cost, that's what they would do. Since it's not, they won't.

I still reject the premise that 18% or 20% of GDP is 'too much' to spend on healthcare and is somehow 'unsustainable.' I believe that notion is about as valid as the premise that global warming is entirely man-made.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The percentage will only get higher as the boomer's retire. It shouldn't be all about the cost, it isn't for me, but for some that's their boiling point. Too many don't want to read the fine print, but are willing to look at the bottom line, and that alone is an acceptable reason. They might not want their kids paying for it, so that's as good a reason as any IMO. We only have the current programs to look at as a guide, in treatment quality and administration, and it doesn't look pretty for the payer (taxpayer that is) or the patient in my book.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If it were really about healthcare and its cost, that's what they would do. Since it's not, they won't. I still reject the premise that 18% or 20% of GDP is 'too mu ch' to spend on healthcare and is somehow 'unsustainable.'

This is how much people are normally willing to invest in their healthcare. The key is that they are ALLOWED to invest that much. If you have medicaid or medicare and you go to a doctor and say "doctor, I maxed out my benefits, I will pay you cash to give me more treatments beyond what was rationed to me" the doctor must say "I am sorry but it is illegal for me to do so"... because it really IS. It is illegal for a doctor to provide benefits for cash to recipients of government rationing.

I believe that notion is about as valid as the premise that global warming is entirely man-made.

Global warming has NOTHING to do with humans. Forget entirely man made. Humans account for less than 3% of global CO2 emissions, out of which less than half is due to industry (we breath). The increased solar emissions in the past few decades has caused global warming in all planets in our solar system, even pluto which drifted further from the sun got hotter, and mars' frozen CO2 poles are melting. Finally, there is not a shred of evidence to show that CO2 has any real effect on global temperature, and plenty of evidence showing it doesn't. This is as scientific as it was when they suggested that "industrial emissions are causing global cooling by blocking the sun" in the 1970s.

The people who made those suggestions btw, demanded we paint the poles black so they melt in the 1970s, now they demand we blow up a super volcano with nukes to spew forth ash and blot out the sun. (the plan by obama's own official advisor for global climate change).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Medicare (health) 9% 23%

If we went back to the '74 rate, I'd be dead.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If we went back to the '74 rate, I'd be dead.

No, I don't think so Richard just because everything was cheaper in 74, Doctor and staff salaries, available medicines and of course the lower number of people on Medicare. All of the boomer's were working then. Less illegals walking into emergency rooms. Lower life expectancy.

It's just amazing to see how this is growing out of proportion with other government programs, this as the GDP is growing. This UHC proposal does nothing to stop this expansion, it just cuts a bigger slice of the pie, and does nothing to stop the rising cost of drugs, procedures, equipment, and salaries plus, throws the additional cost of more bureaucracy into the mix.

Successfully updated karma reason!