Like A Mofo Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081112/ts_nm/...bama_healthcare WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama's plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system would cost the federal government $75 billion the first year but would provide health insurance for 95 percent of Americans, consulting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers said on Wednesday. Thoughts?
The Big Cat Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081112/ts_nm/...bama_healthcare WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama's plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system would cost the federal government $75 billion the first year but would provide health insurance for 95 percent of Americans, consulting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers said on Wednesday. Thoughts? is it 75B additional dollars, or does his plan deduct expenditures already in the budget?
molson_golden2002 Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 is it 75B additional dollars, or does his plan deduct expenditures already in the budget? And what about in the years following?
Wacka Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081112/ts_nm/...bama_healthcare WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama's plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system would cost the federal government $75 billion the first year but would provide health insurance for 95 percent of Americans, consulting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers said on Wednesday. Thoughts? Try $750 billion minium.
/dev/null Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 And what about in the years following? "The plan would increase to $1 trillion cumulatively by 2018 or approximately $130 billion per year," the report said. While the plan would extend health insurance to two-thirds of the 47 million people who currently lack it, the overhaul may worsen some problems, such as a shortage of primary care doctors, the analysis found. "Unless costs are cut, growing health care costs will increase the costs of Obama's plan dramatically over time and reduce the effectiveness of mandates. This could make the federal costs unsustainably high," the report said.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Considering how mush we are dropping on foreign wars and the bailout... This is chump change. No?
The Big Cat Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Considering how mush we are dropping on foreign wars and the bailout... This is chump change. No? D'uh, those are PATRIOTIC pursuits!
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 So it will cost $2500/per year per person? For what kind of coverage? What will the deductible be? What are the out-of-pocket costs for exams, X-rays, office visits and lab work? What percentage of out-patient surgery will people be responsible for? What about their percentage for inpatient surgery and maternity? What about their percentage of emergency room care? What's the deductible for prescriptions? Will women be able to pick and choose their OB/GYN or will they be assigned only a few to choose from? These are just a few questions that will determine how viable this program will be. And before people start jumping on me for being a rightwingnut trying to bust balls, let me say my company spent almost $50,000 ensuring four people and their spouses last year. I'll be happy to pocket that dough if I can move my employees to Obama's plan. But it's just not as simple as saying "Here's your health care." And it SURE the hell is not as simple as $2500 per year per person. That number is incredibly low for even the most basic of health care.
Joe Miner Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 "The plan would increase to $1 trillion cumulatively by 2018 or approximately $130 billion per year," the report said. While the plan would extend health insurance to two-thirds of the 47 million people who currently lack it, the overhaul may worsen some problems, such as a shortage of primary care doctors, the analysis found. "Unless costs are cut, growing health care costs will increase the costs of Obama's plan dramatically over time and reduce the effectiveness of mandates. This could make the federal costs unsustainably high," the report said. Dev, I think your football analogy in the other thread can be made to apply here as well.
molson_golden2002 Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 So it will cost $2500/per year per person? For what kind of coverage? What will the deductible be? What are the out-of-pocket costs for exams, X-rays, office visits and lab work? What percentage of out-patient surgery will people be responsible for? What about their percentage for inpatient surgery and maternity? What about their percentage of emergency room care? What's the deductible for prescriptions? Will women be able to pick and choose their OB/GYN or will they be assigned only a few to choose from? These are just a few questions that will determine how viable this program will be. And before people start jumping on me for being a rightwingnut trying to bust balls, let me say my company spent almost $50,000 ensuring four people and their spouses last year. I'll be happy to pocket that dough if I can move my employees to Obama's plan. But it's just not as simple as saying "Here's your health care." And it SURE the hell is not as simple as $2500 per year per person. That number is incredibly low for even the most basic of health care. Who cares about all that crap! The real question is: Can I buy Viagara on this plan?
Joe Miner Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Who cares about all that crap! The real question is: Can I buy Viagara on this plan? Maybe, but definitely no birth control. So buy Viagra at your own risk (or at the sheep's risk I guess)
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 D'uh, those are PATRIOTIC pursuits! Ya, health care is NOT: ...promote the general Welfare... Welfare welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD Yep... The meaning has nothing to do with that.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Who cares about all that crap! The real question is: Can I buy Viagara on this plan? See my post above... You be the judge!
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Ya, health care is NOT: ...promote the general Welfare... Welfare welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD Yep... The meaning has nothing to do with that. The "General Welfare" is not the sum total of all individual welfare.
Joe Miner Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 The "General Welfare" is not the sum total of all individual welfare. Hey, no one said we were gonna have to do math in this thread.
/dev/null Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 The "General Welfare" is not the sum total of all individual welfare. Hey, no one said we were gonna have to do math in this thread. There's a 3.5 joke somewhere in there...
Max Fischer Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 I suggest that everyone reads the entire article and not cherry pick sentences. Overall, it's seems reasonable enough to give a serious look.
finknottle Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Considering how mush we are dropping on foreign wars and the bailout... This is chump change. No? Wars end, and bailouts are one-time fixes (supposedly). Entitlements are paid forever. When exactly does this expenditure end? And if we decide it is a mistake or unworkable, how politically do we rescind the benifits and tax credits granted to the uninsured under the plan?
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 I suggest that everyone reads the entire article and not cherry pick sentences. Overall, it's seems reasonable enough to give a serious look. No one can give it a serious look without a least answering some of the basic questions I posed above. You're giving health care to people who can not afford it, but you also have to ask the question "Can they afford what is not covered?" Because if they can't, then whatever costs you think you're associating with this program go straight to hell until you factor in how much money is going to be required to cover the costs that the consumer can't or won't pay.
Like A Mofo Posted November 12, 2008 Author Posted November 12, 2008 Hey, no one said we were gonna have to do math in this thread. There's a 3.5 joke somewhere in there...
Recommended Posts