LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Riddle me this Lib’s

Pookie said:
Actually it says it does. But you'd have to read it first to know that. It just doesn't save enough to completely pay for Government's cost for the health care reform package in a 10 year window that the CBO used.


The new research offers them added ammunition, arguing that the 10-year horizon typically used by CBO analysts is too brief to capture the savings that eventually result from improved public health. The authors -- who include two University of Chicago medical professors as well as O'Grady and James C. Capretta, who both served for years in various health policy positions in Washington -- suggest that the CBO instead use a 25-year "budget window" to calculate the cost of prevention programs.

"I'm trying to show them that there are other ways to do this, as we face these new challenges from the epidemic of chronic illness," he said. "They're used to thinking like economists. And their friends at Health and Human Services are used to thinking like actuaries. But there's this third way, which is epidemiological, which shows us how a disease progresses over time."
Click to expand...

It doesn't actually say what you said it says. (whew.)

IT says that in order for the preventative care to save costs overall, you have to have more than a 25 year recovery period. For many diabetics, they will not live long enough to recover that cost...i.e. the type 2 diagnosis comes too late in life. That's the reference about "young" diabetics in the article, and also the bars in the graph Vetteguy posted.

For people who don't live 25 years, the preventive care costs more than it saves.
 
SeanH said:
Do they have the authority to make everyone purchase insurance for driving?
Click to expand...
No, they do not. But the States do.

Nobody is required by either State nor Federal government to buy a car.

However, should they elect to do so, the State has built roads upon which cars can be driven. But as a condition of their use, the State has certain requirements, one of which is that a driver must be licensed, after being tested to insure that he or she understands the laws of the State, another is that a driverl must at least be insured against damage caused to other parties in which that driver is at fault.

I don't know if all States have this requirement, but California does.

California also requires that a vehicle pass an emissions test every two years.
 
firespin said:
It doesn't actually say what you said it says. (whew.)

IT says that in order for the preventative care to save costs overall, you have to have more than a 25 year recovery period. For many diabetics, they will not live long enough to recover that cost...i.e. the type 2 diagnosis comes too late in life. That's the reference about "young" diabetics in the article.

For people who don't live 25 years, the preventive care costs more than it saves.
Click to expand...


Actually, it says exactly what I said it says.


Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year -- money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found.


Maybe you should read the whole article for context.
 
Pookie said:
Actually, it says exactly what I said it says.


Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year -- money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found.


Maybe you should read the whole article for context.
Click to expand...

I did read the whole article.

"money that largely would be recovered after 25 years" means that, for the first 25 years, it costs more than it saves. That's why they don't say the money is completely recovered.

Which was my point. Only in selective cases is this particularly form of preventative care cost effective. Of course, you could choose to withhold it from people more than 30, if you think that's ethical.
 
Pookie said:
The Republicans won't be irrelevant for long. They'll eventually moderate to be more acceptable to the middle.
Click to expand...
They may suddenly become relevant again in Nov. 2010, judging by the reaction to Obama so far.

People seem to either be blissfully ignorant of what's going on, or really angry about it.

I have concerns about the requirement to purchase or be given a penalty as well. I agree with you on that.
Click to expand...
That's a really big step. Once that line's crossed, you can be required to purchase Life Insurance, required to set up a 401k, required to set up a safety fence around your outdoor pool if you have kids, required to go to a gym and do 30 minutes of exercise three times a week... all for your own good, and that of society in general, of course.
 
Byron In Exile said:
They may suddenly become relevant again in Nov. 2010, judging by the reaction to Obama so far.

People seem to either be blissfully ignorant of what's going on, or really angry about it.
Click to expand...
If they don't become relevant in 2010, what happens then?

If they become relevant in 2010 and don't "fix" things, what happens then?
 
The whole debate is sort of silly, re: prevention.

while there are a zillion opinions about what's wrong with healthcare, one of the biggest common denominators appears to be that too many procedures are done...too many tests, too many treatments of marginal effectiveness. Analogous to prescribing antibiotics for viral infections. People want to "try something", even if it's unlikely to be clinically effective. Let's do a CAT scan, an MRI, and then put you on these medications. (And yes, lab tests are way too expensive compared to other countries.)

Under the general heading of prevention are a range of things, some diagnostic, some delaying onset of symptoms, some treating initial symptoms to keep them from becoming bigger problems. Drugs to lower blood pressure, to reduce cholesterol, to thin blood. Pacemakers for irregular heartbeat. Nobody knows for sure what these actually do over a lifetime, vs. not doing them. But if health care is more available, it stands to reason that more of this type of treatment will be done, some of it beneficial, some less so, all incurring costs.
 
IrezumiKiss said:
If they don't become relevant in 2010, what happens then?
Click to expand...
Then the Democrats will control legislation for at least two more years.

If they become relevant in 2010 and don't "fix" things, what happens then?
Click to expand...
Then the US will revert from a one-party system, like the old Soviet Union, back to a two-party system, which is a lot safer for the people.
 
the original poster of this topic says, "you all take this place too serious". I say, no, you get mad when people tell you your beliefs don't work and that you can't criticize the plan based on numbers alone.
 
vetteman said:
Squirrel!
Click to expand...

Wrong again, friend.

They capped Texas malpractice awards years ago, basically made it not worth it to sue a doctor....yet doctors still ordered hundreds of thousands of medical tests that were questionable at best.

So they examined exactly why this was happening.

Guess what they found?

Doctors treat their practice like a business.

They invested heavily in x-ray machines, CT scanners, MRIs and lots of other diagnostic equipment because the profit margin on these tests were very high!

They had an economic incentive to load a patient up with as many tests as possible.

(I linked to the study yesterday, btw).
 
I have the solution:

MEXICO!

You can get any prescription pill you want, or even a surgery for a few pesos.

;)
 
flat5ive said:
I love how suddenly, everyone thinks our healthcare system works.

John McCain was proposing healthcare reform too. Was he just senile and wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, the cost trajectory for this stuff is way out of hand. That said, I think you have to look beyond the simple words "healthcare reform" that cover a variety of different "reforming" concepts, and see what's actually being proposed. "State police" and "police state" seem pretty similar on the surface, but they're not really the same thing.

The sort of reforms you WANT to have are things that give individuals more control and responsibility (and yes, more out of pocket costs in exchange for lower premiums), since they are the only ones that can decide how much health care they want to pay for. Eventually move health insurance away from employers...they don't do auto or homeowners insurance today. (Maybe start with vouchers to help manage the transition in cost from employer-paid to employee paid.) Create more competition among insurers by allowing consumers to buy policies from out of state issuers, and make policies transferable without pre-existing condition restrictions. Let consumers focus their insurance needs on major health issues like hospitalizations rather than doctor visits through high deductible policies.

Instead, we're being offered thousand page bills that claim to preserve everything (wrong) but fix all the deficiencies (wrong) at no extra cost (wrong).
 
MechaBlade said:
I don't see the point in a universal health care plan without a public option. I actually don't get what it would be without the public option.
Click to expand...

It won't be shit without a public option, Mandating people to buy insurance without a public option would make the insurance companies richer than they are already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
False Claims Against Made Against Trump By The Left
3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
2K
Politruk
P
HumanBean
"The Castle" (An "I Am Legend" inspired RP)
2 3
Replies
67
Views
1K
HumanBean
HumanBean
P
The National Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by the Fellowship
Replies
2
Views
140
Politruk
P
RobDownSouth
Remember those dire predictions of a "Recession in 2023-2024"? The White House does!
Replies
0
Views
219
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
adrina
Mad about the economy? Blame Donald Trump.
4 5 6
Replies
142
Views
4K
Politruk
P
Back
Top