Give me one reason....

[cch5432]

Give me one reason why we should ever listen to anything from the government in regards to spending.

 

Cash for Clunkers was a plan that was supposed to cost $1 billion. (Now, first of all, let's imagine what would happen if there were $1 billion in tax cuts- how many more businesses would get started, creating jobs in the long-run. But that's besides my current point) Cash for Clunkers was a plan that was supposed to cost $1 billion. Today, our elected officials are "trying to save 'cash for clunkers" by passing legislation that will pour an additional $2 billion into the program. This is an increase of 200%.

 

Keep in mind that our government runs at a huge deficit, owes billions or trillions of dollars to other countries, and has the insane power to print money and therefore devalue the worth of the currency that we currently hold.

 

Now, President Obama's lowest estimate of his health care plan will cost between $50 billion-$65 billion. (I've seen estimates as high as $4 trillion). Give me one good reason why, even using President Obama's dreamingly low number, this program would not get to be at least $150 billion (an increase of 200%, like cash for clunkers).

[UKMustangFan]

:thumb:

I think you'll probably be waiting quite some time for that answer....

 

It's a disaster in the making.

[Run To State]

And yet many actually want these same people in charge of our health care. :eek: :ohbrother:

[titletownclown]

And yet many actually want these same people in charge of our health care. :eek: :ohbrother:

 

I'd trust Keith to be in charge of healthcare before I'd trust the Feds.

 

[

[ColonelCrazy]

I hear crickets.

[Jim Schue]

I'd trust Keith to be in charge of healthcare before I'd trust the Feds.

 

[

 

Anybody living that way for that long has to be doing something right … or, he's just a freak of nature.

[MountainThunder]

Anybody living that way for that long has to be doing something right … or, he's just a freak of nature.

 

:laugh: :lol:

 

I will go with freak of nature, .... but, ...

 

I saw a comedian years ago named Ron Shock who was pretty funny, and made a very interesting point about why he smoked and drank.

 

"The jogging and health craze in this country started with a guy named Jim Fixx, when he wrote the book 'The complete book of running' in 1977. 7 years later, at the age of 52, Jim Fixx died of a heart attack, ... after jogging. Now let's take a different example, ... Keith Richards. He smokes profusely, drinks like a fish, has taken every kind of drug, has relations with younger women, ... and is approximately 102 years old."

 

I think Bill Hicks used to talk about this in his comedy routine as well.

 

Something to think about. :sssh:

[woodsrider]

I hear crickets.

They're getting louder.

[lynks66]

Maybe everyone on this board agrees with your sentiment on this issue?

[cch5432]

I hope that I have some credibility left. I'm not trying to come off as another basher of our President. However, beyond the fact that I don't think government can run healthcare better than, you know, people who actually work in the field of healthcare, the costs will be enormous. Government can't run government without overriding their OWN set budgets. If we give them an industry with enormous costs, why should they be able to contain them?

[SSC]

They don't want to defend b/c then they would have to answer about him saying he wants to eliminate the private system in this video:

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

[NEXT]

I think CARS was a good idea, just misguided.

 

It has led to more sales in cars.

 

I only wish they would take the cars that are turned in and if running properly turn around and sell them @ a discounted rate to those who are on government assistance to replace unsafe, beat up, nor running properly cars.......

[Habib]

I hope that I have some credibility left. I'm not trying to come off as another basher of our President. However, beyond the fact that I don't think government can run healthcare better than, you know, people who actually work in the field of healthcare, the costs will be enormous. Government can't run government without overriding their OWN set budgets. If we give them an industry with enormous costs, why should they be able to contain them?

 

I think one of the problems with US healthcare right now - lacking informational feedback and competition - firms are measured and rewarded by increasing the expense of their services, not the quality or affordability of those services. This incentivises firms to increase their rates for services and provide useless but costly services, while insurance firms are incentivised to deny coverage or be obstinate about making payments. There are two roads to go down to alter the system: have the government provide insurance or medical services or place more authority in the hands of the consumers. I've never heard a reasoned argument for the latter (not to say one doesn't exist), possibly because it would necessarily increase the direct cost to the consumer and the insurance industry would be equally opposed. As to the former, I think a government insurance option is the most logical. Having government providing the actual services would probably cause a fairly significant drop in quality. As long as the government is merely paying the bills to the private medical professionals, quality should remain constant, if not improve, while costs could be negotiated. Of course it would be an expensive program, but I'm not sure what alternatives there are.

[FC]

Although this article from the Cato Institute is rather dated (1994), I believe it is still relevant today.

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa211.html

 

The main point is that as consumers (patients) consume more medical care the costs rise. Just like supply and demand with respect to the oil industry, car industry, or any other industry, as demand increases so does the price of the product or service.

 

Under this theory it would seem to indicate that if the government is the primary insurer and patient costs are reduced then demand will increase. That will consequently increase costs and the government (taxpayers) will have to pay the bill.

 

For the government to control costs they will have to control access and limit costs. Which leads to the issue of pharmaceutical companies, medical technology companies, etc… investing in new drugs, treatments, and medical technology. They invest money into research and development to make money. If their potential for profit is significantly reduced or gone will they continue?

 

Our system is not perfect and does need some tweaking, but a complete overhaul with the government in charge? Hopefully not in my lifetime

[cch5432]

I think one of the problems with US healthcare right now - lacking informational feedback and competition - firms are measured and rewarded by increasing the expense of their services, not the quality or affordability of those services. This incentivises firms to increase their rates for services and provide useless but costly services, while insurance firms are incentivised to deny coverage or be obstinate about making payments. There are two roads to go down to alter the system: have the government provide insurance or medical services or place more authority in the hands of the consumers. I've never heard a reasoned argument for the latter (not to say one doesn't exist), possibly because it would necessarily increase the direct cost to the consumer and the insurance industry would be equally opposed. As to the former, I think a government insurance option is the most logical. Having government providing the actual services would probably cause a fairly significant drop in quality. As long as the government is merely paying the bills to the private medical professionals, quality should remain constant, if not improve, while costs could be negotiated. Of course it would be an expensive program, but I'm not sure what alternatives there are.

It is a tough call. The crux of the problem, IMO, is employee sponsored health care. No one asks, "How much for that test?" because the employer is paying for it. And that raises costs on everyone. The worst part is that employee sponsored health care is purely a product of the free market (it arose in the 1940's as a way to attract better employees). Is the answer a law that denies companies the right to offer healthcare benefits to employees? Could help, but is a tremendous infringement on the rights of employers.

 

There is no doubt that government-run health care is the worst option. As for government-sponsored, I don't know. What people need to keep in mind is that government can't fund everything. And our government has no money. So, even if government-sponsored health care were better (which is debatable), I think that we need to realize that government has to pick and choose what it funds. America is not a utopia, and our government simply can't afford this. If our politicians were more committed to balancing the budget and cutting other expenditure, perhaps this would be a possibility. But government can't keep racking up the bill when it has no money, and it is more prudent that we rely on what we have now until our government is financially able to take on such huge costs.