ObamaCare…coming soon

[an]

[quote=afx114][quote=AN]If you want alternative plan, please see my post in the 2nd page. I posted a MD’s proposal. I’ll post it again: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html.%5B/quote%5D

Those are some good proposals (from 2006), but how do they address the issue of rising costs? From what I can tell those bills simply shuffle the cost from the taxpayer to the government (via credits). How will that actually lower costs? Those proposals seem happy to keep the insurance monopolies in the loop and do nothing to introduce more competition into the marketplace. They also do nothing to increase efficiency of the healthcare system. I’m not a tax/econonomics expert so I’d love to be convinced otherwise.[/quote]
Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.

One of the bill addresses “medical malpractice crisis”. I’m not a MD, so I can’t speak w/ any conviction, but Dr. Paul is a MD, so I think he know a little something about what he’s saying.

If you follow Dr. Paul’s stance on health care, you’ll see that he view health care as a luxury and not a right. If you want to lower your health cost, you eat right, exercise, etc. to keep your body in great shape. That will reduce your cost and the burden you put on society as a whole. In his opinion, one of the major factor that keep health care cost rising is HMO. Once again, that’s his opinion. I haven’t done enough research to dispute that claim, but it sounds logical to me.

[afx114]

[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]

You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?

The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.

And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?

[afx114]

[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]

You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?

The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.

And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?

[afx114]

[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]

You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?

The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.

And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?

[afx114]

[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]

You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?

The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.

And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?

[afx114]

[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]

You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?

The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.

And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?

[an]

[quote=afx114]
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?[/quote]
How often does people get into accidents vs how many people are obese and getting various other medical issues because of obesity? If you eat right and exercise to stay in good shape, you should be able to buy health insurance cheaply. If you can do that, then you’d be covered if some accident does occur. It is still a luxury and it’s up to the individual to get involved in keeping themselves healthy and out of the hospital as much as possible.

Also, regarding government being in the red, it’s the citizen’s money, so it should be spent on the citizen. I’m sure they (the government) can spend w/in their mean if you force them to.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?[/quote]
How often does people get into accidents vs how many people are obese and getting various other medical issues because of obesity? If you eat right and exercise to stay in good shape, you should be able to buy health insurance cheaply. If you can do that, then you’d be covered if some accident does occur. It is still a luxury and it’s up to the individual to get involved in keeping themselves healthy and out of the hospital as much as possible.

Also, regarding government being in the red, it’s the citizen’s money, so it should be spent on the citizen. I’m sure they (the government) can spend w/in their mean if you force them to.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?[/quote]
How often does people get into accidents vs how many people are obese and getting various other medical issues because of obesity? If you eat right and exercise to stay in good shape, you should be able to buy health insurance cheaply. If you can do that, then you’d be covered if some accident does occur. It is still a luxury and it’s up to the individual to get involved in keeping themselves healthy and out of the hospital as much as possible.

Also, regarding government being in the red, it’s the citizen’s money, so it should be spent on the citizen. I’m sure they (the government) can spend w/in their mean if you force them to.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?[/quote]
How often does people get into accidents vs how many people are obese and getting various other medical issues because of obesity? If you eat right and exercise to stay in good shape, you should be able to buy health insurance cheaply. If you can do that, then you’d be covered if some accident does occur. It is still a luxury and it’s up to the individual to get involved in keeping themselves healthy and out of the hospital as much as possible.

Also, regarding government being in the red, it’s the citizen’s money, so it should be spent on the citizen. I’m sure they (the government) can spend w/in their mean if you force them to.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?[/quote]
How often does people get into accidents vs how many people are obese and getting various other medical issues because of obesity? If you eat right and exercise to stay in good shape, you should be able to buy health insurance cheaply. If you can do that, then you’d be covered if some accident does occur. It is still a luxury and it’s up to the individual to get involved in keeping themselves healthy and out of the hospital as much as possible.

Also, regarding government being in the red, it’s the citizen’s money, so it should be spent on the citizen. I’m sure they (the government) can spend w/in their mean if you force them to.

[Zeitgeist]

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,”

U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D., of Oklahoma, and Richard Burr, of North Carolina, along with U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California introduced legislation that shares the goal of the opposite party: the promotion of universal access to quality, affordable health care.

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

[Zeitgeist]

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,”

U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D., of Oklahoma, and Richard Burr, of North Carolina, along with U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California introduced legislation that shares the goal of the opposite party: the promotion of universal access to quality, affordable health care.

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

[Zeitgeist]

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,”

U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D., of Oklahoma, and Richard Burr, of North Carolina, along with U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California introduced legislation that shares the goal of the opposite party: the promotion of universal access to quality, affordable health care.

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

[Zeitgeist]

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,”

U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D., of Oklahoma, and Richard Burr, of North Carolina, along with U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California introduced legislation that shares the goal of the opposite party: the promotion of universal access to quality, affordable health care.

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

[Author]

Posts