Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Max Baucus (D) Says He Fears Obamacare Is Headed For 'Huge Train Wreck'
- Thread starter mrplunkey
- Start date
mrplunkey
New member
Baucus is one of the reasons we have this ObamaCare mess though.
We need to leave ObamaCare alone. The American people let this thing go through, they need to suffer the consequences. Voters deserve the government they get.
Maybe next time they'll wise up, rise up and stop disasters like this.
We need to leave ObamaCare alone. The American people let this thing go through, they need to suffer the consequences. Voters deserve the government they get.
Maybe next time they'll wise up, rise up and stop disasters like this.
mrplunkey
New member
Well of course it is, since Medicare is so well-managed and on-budget.
gjohnson5
New member
If the residents in your state were going to vote you out due to disapproval of your own actions , what would you do?
A quote from your own thread.
The six-term Democrat is also expected to face a tough re-election in 2014. Baucus is still trying to recover from approval ratings that nosedived amid displeasure with the health care law in his home state.
There is nothing nonfunctional stated in your thread about Obamacare. The issue is partisanship. Partisanship is why 1/2 the states refuse to setup the expanded medicaid. Then the Feds will need to step in
mrplunkey
New member
I'd cast votes that actually reflect the views and interests of the people who sent me there to represent them.
Instead, we get stuck with these guys who act like raging conservatives in their own districts, then go to Washington and vote like liberal idiots.
gjohnson5
New member
I'd cast votes that actually reflect the views and interests of the people who sent me there to represent them.
Instead, we get stuck with these guys who act like raging conservatives in their own districts, then go to Washington and vote like liberal idiots.
That much I will agree with you on and it's a horrible problem. Some of these Congressman / Congresswomen have gerrymandered themselves into a state where they can't be removed from office.
In those cases , those congresspeople do not have to act in accordance with the constituents. The gerrymandering needs to be fixed first.
But I don't think that's the issue here. Health insurance rates in Montana were probably ok and the poverty levels there were probably much lower then urban areas of the country. So those folks probably have little reason to support expanded medicaid.
Unfortunately the cost of health care needs to be spread across the board. Many are going to feel more pain. However emergency room costs and bankruptcies are out of control due to medical care. Something needs to be done
jnevin
New member
Bullshit.
gjohnson5
New member
To Jnevin and SD , IMHO you both are wrong
SOme information below
Healthcare Costs Soar Above Overall Inflation
John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media, October 22, 2010
The average, per capita cost of providing healthcare services in the United States rose by 7.32% for the past 12 months ending in August, a rate of inflation wildly above the 1.1% overall inflation for the same period, according to new study by Standard & Poor's.
The new numbers are consistent with a trend that from August 2000 to August 2010 has seen healthcare inflation rise 48% while overall Consumer Price Index has risen 26% for the same period, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show.
"Given the last 10 years, no we are not surprised," Maureen Maitland, vice president of S&P Indices, says of the findings in the new report. "If you look at the public data that are out there and have been out there, the national health expenditure data, what we have seen is not only healthcare costs have basically risen over the last 10 years at a 7% rate. But the percentage of GDP has gone up dramatically too, because we are outpacing not only inflation but the rate of growth in GDP."
Clearly this is a national problem , not a state by state problem. The problem of health insurance (which are generally run by banks) costs and benkruptcies, and passing those costs off to consumers is not a state issue. It can't be contained in one state. It really doesn't matter how much people scream socialism. Public Emergency rooms are already federally funded. SD talk about food and transportation. Food stamp and welfare programs are already federally funded. The interstate system is already federally funded. Local infrastructure projects roads / bridges and levees are already federally funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment act.
You can scream socialism all day long , these expenses are already being funded federally either by taxes or by borrowing from another country.
SOme information below
Healthcare Costs Soar Above Overall Inflation
John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media, October 22, 2010
The average, per capita cost of providing healthcare services in the United States rose by 7.32% for the past 12 months ending in August, a rate of inflation wildly above the 1.1% overall inflation for the same period, according to new study by Standard & Poor's.
The new numbers are consistent with a trend that from August 2000 to August 2010 has seen healthcare inflation rise 48% while overall Consumer Price Index has risen 26% for the same period, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show.
"Given the last 10 years, no we are not surprised," Maureen Maitland, vice president of S&P Indices, says of the findings in the new report. "If you look at the public data that are out there and have been out there, the national health expenditure data, what we have seen is not only healthcare costs have basically risen over the last 10 years at a 7% rate. But the percentage of GDP has gone up dramatically too, because we are outpacing not only inflation but the rate of growth in GDP."
Clearly this is a national problem , not a state by state problem. The problem of health insurance (which are generally run by banks) costs and benkruptcies, and passing those costs off to consumers is not a state issue. It can't be contained in one state. It really doesn't matter how much people scream socialism. Public Emergency rooms are already federally funded. SD talk about food and transportation. Food stamp and welfare programs are already federally funded. The interstate system is already federally funded. Local infrastructure projects roads / bridges and levees are already federally funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment act.
You can scream socialism all day long , these expenses are already being funded federally either by taxes or by borrowing from another country.
gjohnson5
New member
We have a huge hole to dig ourselves out of. But IMHO it makes no sense to cut federal funds from those projects and let state budgets handle problem they simply aren't equipped to handle. If healthcare costs have outpaced both the GDP and inflation , how is a state budget going to handle emergency room and critical care costs by itself? Don't think they can and doing so would create a larger disaster then what we have now. Better accounting and more frugal expenditures are needed. Complete elimination of federal programs simply because some people hate the word "socialism" makes no sense
Pipe dream my friend. No government body or politician has incentive to conduct proper accounting and reign in expenditures because they are the "only game in town". Thats why we have 16T debt and havent balanced the budget since the 1990's. Besides, there are votes to be had and elections to be won. And you dont win elections by telling everyone what you arent going to do, which always involves spending. Thats also why Obamacare is conveniently taking effect *after* the 2012 elections. How to pay for it? Nobody knows, nobody cares, just give it to us. Bank bailouts, too big to fail, bloated foodstamp rolls, everything subsidized, blah blah
Elections to be won, votes to be had.
Last edited:
mrplunkey
New member
It blows me away how Americans don't understand simple math.
Most hospitals operate on a -1% to 1% operating margin. Let's just call it zero (Tennessee is at -1% right now).
20% of their customers are no-pay/self-pay = 0% cost recovery / 100% loss
40% of their customers are Medicare = 90% cost recovery / 10% loss
They make-up the difference with their private pay insurers. So to get them back to even:
40% x ? = 100*20% + 10%*40%
? = 50%
So they have to get a 50% margin (not mark up... margin) on their cost to cover the no-pays and the Medicare short-pays. Private insurance is their premium customer.
Medicare is going bankrupt even with hundreds of billions of dollars a year in subsidies coming from the private sector -- let alone the taxes that employees and employers pay into the system.
Cliffs Notes: Nationalization would fix US health care about as well as bombing Canada would fix the war in Afghanistan.
Most hospitals operate on a -1% to 1% operating margin. Let's just call it zero (Tennessee is at -1% right now).
20% of their customers are no-pay/self-pay = 0% cost recovery / 100% loss
40% of their customers are Medicare = 90% cost recovery / 10% loss
They make-up the difference with their private pay insurers. So to get them back to even:
40% x ? = 100*20% + 10%*40%
? = 50%
So they have to get a 50% margin (not mark up... margin) on their cost to cover the no-pays and the Medicare short-pays. Private insurance is their premium customer.
Medicare is going bankrupt even with hundreds of billions of dollars a year in subsidies coming from the private sector -- let alone the taxes that employees and employers pay into the system.
Cliffs Notes: Nationalization would fix US health care about as well as bombing Canada would fix the war in Afghanistan.
gjohnson5
New member
I will need a closer examination of your numbers and frankly the hospital margins don't itemize the issue. The emergency room expenses are not paid by medicaid , they are paid by Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, so we have another problem with your numbers.
Secondly private insurance is run by a pool. A group of people pay into a pool and when the pool doesn't pay for the expenses then premiums go up. Having said this , I don't see how it makes any difference if the the pool is private insurers or a national system. Same with individual plans, those who qualify for an individual plan have to justify their costs. If you admit that the private insurance pool has been covering most costs why not increase the size of the pool by putting those 20% who are 100% loss into the pool? Yes costs on the pool go up , but the more people in the pool , the less the increase will be
mrplunkey
New member
Medicaid is an entirely different train wreck.
And yes, making a nighmarishly mismanaged pool bigger (i.e. nationalizing health care) is the equivalent of bombing Canada to end the Afghan war.
mrplunkey
New member
And here's a tip:
Baucus is bitching about ObamaCare because his state (and the other frontier states)'s kickback is about to expire.
They got their Medicare wage index set artificially high for five years in return for supporting Obamacare. Now that it's about to expire, those swing senators are going to find problems with the legislation until they get it put back to its artificially high level.
Baucus is bitching about ObamaCare because his state (and the other frontier states)'s kickback is about to expire.
They got their Medicare wage index set artificially high for five years in return for supporting Obamacare. Now that it's about to expire, those swing senators are going to find problems with the legislation until they get it put back to its artificially high level.
jnevin
New member
I wasn't saying bullshit because healthcare expenses are on the rise, I was saying bullshit because you said it needs to be spread across the board. Fuck paying for some morbidly obese piece of shit diabetic's expenses, same with paying for smokers, etc. Why should their unhealthy lifestyles become my financial burden?
jnevin
New member
Well, some individual hospitals may post those numbers, but if they're part of companies like HCA, etc, their profits are pretty fucking solid. Using HCA as an example, their audits usually show $30-100MM in revenue per facility, per year. Net income is usually $5-10MM. HCA itself is in the billions.
If you're talking smaller private hospitals, I could agree, but those are either being shut down or bought up.
mrplunkey
New member
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and DC have already banned tobacco surcharges in their exchanges.
They've classified smoking as an addiction and decided that non-smokers should subsidize non-smokers as a matter of public policy.
Remember how ObamaCare was supposed to encourage all that healthy living?
Think again.
john stossel's mustache
Banned
I'm just glad my beach house was paid for, twice.
mrplunkey
New member
HCA's 5%-7% operating margins are the absolute envy of the industry.
If they find themselves in a bad payer mix or in a weak market position, they'll just sell the hospital. Plus, they're non-nonsense when it comes to policies and products -- it's their way or nothing.
I admire that.
If you subscribe to health insurance, they already are your burden. The only difference is how big the pools are. For group insurance, isn't it generally accepted that bigger pools get better rates?
mrplunkey
New member
No, not at all.
The better the pool, the better the rate.
I could pool every uninsurable person in the country into one massive group and we'd have a nightmarishly bad group. It's like we say in acquisitions: When you combine two dogs, all you get is a bigger dog.
gjohnson5
New member
This is exactly what I was trying to say in my last post. The people filing bankrupcies for medical costs are people WITH insurance , not ones without. So the costs for those people's creditors is already being passed on you. Not only that but the people who have higher healthcare costs who the insurance company keeps increase the cost on everyone.
It makes no sense to say lower insurance costs are best if everyone in the pool is health. That simply is an impossible example. In a large enough pool someone is going to be sick. Saying screw sick people doesn't make sense and is inhumane
But you'd have to go out of your way to select members for that bad group. Even with random selection you'd do much better.
gjohnson5
New member
This is not true at all. Most uninsured people are those who believe they don't need it , hence they don't pay for it. This is mostly younger people and college students who don't make the money to afford and don't have the health problems to need insurance.
Once again the people who are filing bankruptcy due to medical problems are people WITH HEALTH INSURANCE.
Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com
Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.
"Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country," says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that's the major finding in our study."
Last edited:
gjohnson5
New member
OOh , I forgot this part
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance." Health.com: Where the money goes -- A breast cancer donation guide
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance." Health.com: Where the money goes -- A breast cancer donation guide
mrplunkey
New member
And in today's lesson, we learn that uninsurable and uninsured are two distinctly different words.
gjohnson5
New member
Ok I misread that
But my point still stands. The people who filed bankrupcy HAD INSURANCE. So they couldn't have been in your unisurable pool. In group insurance , you either cover the group or you deny the entire group
This country's greater populace is nowhere near educated/disciplined enough for socialized medicine to work. We'll probably end up having to learn the hard way.
mrplunkey
New member
You keep coming back to the bankruptcy issue.
The #2 reason for bankruptcy is job loss.
Should we nationalize labor as well? If the government made a pool of labor large enough and assigned everyone a job, then no one would have to face bankruptcy just because they didn't have a job. We could have 0% unemployment if we made the pool large enough because the people who are unemployable or didn't want employment could derive their income from the people who work exceptionally well.
The #4 reason is divorce.
Should we nationalize marriage as well? Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Everyone here knows someone who entered into a doomed marriage that never had a chance. I bet if we did a government version of e-Harmony to match people and then made divorce illegal, we'd have fewer bankruptcies through divorce.
If bankruptcy is our measuring stick, let's address all facets of it.
gjohnson5
New member
You say that like the government doesn't fund job training programs or employ people. They clearly do both. The gov't also offers contracts to private companies
Marriage laws are applicable in all 50 states.
You're reaching fairly hard with this post. Neither of the examples represent a direct cost to the individual. One does not have to get married or get into debt which require them to continue working. Yes , if someone owns a home and then had trouble finding a job , then they may have to file. The buying of a home or a car is a personal choice. Getting sick or in a car wreck is not a choice.
mrplunkey
New member
That's right. The government is already involved in employment -- yet almost 8% of Americans are unemployed and another 10% have given up on employment.
Why not just go all the way? If we need single payer health care, we need single-employer work as well. Don't ignore bankruptcy reason #2 yet restructure 1/6 of the US economy over bankruptcy reason #1. Why isn't gainful employment a right?
You're willing to let a family starve and live in squalor yet the moment they get sick, we whisk them to the hospital? Generational poverty is A-ok by you, but the sniffles aren't?
Last edited:
How so? I mean, how will we see consequences of socialized medicine, since we don't have it?
gjohnson5
New member
Noone said anything about the current employment situation being ok. Infact it not even part of this discussion. The thread was about Obamacare being a mess, not employment. When did we start spending as much on SBA loans and business subsidies as we do medical costs both medicaid or emergency room expenses? When did those costs outpace GDP growth and the consumer price index?
Right now it's not and is not pertinent to this thread
gjohnson5
New member
But I will agree with you that the role of government needs more clear definition and in many cases it needs to be trimmed. The role of government needs to fit civil liberties as well as budget concerns. However to avoid the medical inflation issue just because some don't like the word socialism isn't a good reason. I definitely don't think it's a good reason to avoid because a politician was for it before he was against it....
mrplunkey
New member
Of course it's pertinent. I'm tired of all these lukewarm liberals whining over health care being a right. What gives them the ability to decide health care is a right, but employment, shelter, a college education (including masters and Ph.D.s), food and even entertainment aren't rights?
Your call to action was around health care causing bankruptcies, now you've changed the measuring stick to "outpace GPD growth and the consumer price index". Want to play that game? Ok, then I'll choose college education. They've outpaced both the GDP and CPI horribly. Let's nationalize 100% of universities and guarantee every American who wants it free education -- even J.D., Ph.D., masters, M.D. -- the works. Why should these elite, expensive, degrees be available only to the wealthy? And why should the scholarships even be merit or ability-based?
We already know that education is a huge indicator over overall health. It's right up there with income and social status. So why provide health care for free and deny someone the key indicators of health including income (a good job) and education?
Who decided that national defense, police, fire departments, and roads and bridges are rights?
mrplunkey
New member
gjohnson5
New member
It's funny these right winged Constitutional Scholars talk about rights without even knowing the Constitution. How do yo think postal mail was delivered to people without roads?
The actual quote in Article I section 8 says
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"
Because mail was delivered by horse drawn carriage back then. So roads were necessary to deliver mail to people. So yes it is in the Constitution that the federal government provide road contruction
mrplunkey
New member
I want to make sure I've got this correct, because it may be the most ridiculous post I've seen on EF in a very long time.
Are you trying to say that the federal government's ability to establish post offices and roads gives it the wholesale right to completely take over highways and bridges?
gjohnson5
New member
No ,your post is the silliest thing I've read in a long time
Clearly federal funding for roads was listed in the Constituion at the time of signing. That has nothing to do with Police or Feds blocking off roads. However police blocking off roads seems to be an every day occurrence. Are you suggesting states don't have rights to enforce laws on it's own territory?
But they are necessities with an expense so great that paying for them must be spread across the entire population.
It is my view that primary education and basic medical care also fit that bill.
mrplunkey
New member
Are you rubber and I'm glue? That's what I'm expecting next from you.
How you read "fund roads" from "establish postal routes" is just ridiculous. Know how you establish a postal route? You pick a perfectly good road built by a state or even an individual and declare it a route. It really isn't that difficult.
Establishing post offices involves buildings and any building could be a post office. Thus the government should be in charge of all buildings as well.
I blame the US educational system.
mrplunkey
New member
Jobs, housing, secondary education, food and even entertainment (and the arts) should be rights too by that logic.
I can't help it if you're a lukewarm liberal that doesn't believe in their own philosophy enough to go all-in.
Those are things that individuals can at least sort of afford. But when a successful cancer treatment costs as much as two houses, that puts it out of reach.
I suppose you think the lot of them, including roads, bridges, fire & police, and schools, should be privatized?
Socialized jobs did get us out of the depression though, in the form of armed service and munitions manufacture. I don't suppose there's a large-scale peacetime equivalent to that kind of operation?
gjohnson5
New member
Mr Plunkey. You need to read the constitution again. Article I section 8 literally says post roads. This means that roads were to be created for postal delivery purposes. Not your silly 10th amendment interpretation where the state creates the roads. This clause gave the feds authority to build roads
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EliteFitness
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EliteFitness
mrplunkey
New member
Yup. I'm a massive fan of privatization.
And people buying catastrophic health insurance is a great thing as well.
If we owe someone without catastrophic health insurance a cancer treatment if they become afflicted , do we owe a homeowner who refuses to buy insurance a new home in the event of a fire?
gjohnson5
New member
Catastrophic health insurance may not cover hosptal visits. it may not cover ICU. I know when speaking with United Health this weekend , I needed around 8 different options to be fully covered and that doesn't mean the insurance company drops you.
mrplunkey
New member
And in today's lesson, we learn a "catastrophic health problem" is not the same as a "hospital visit".
If you want insurance for every conceivable visit, then purchase it -- or does somebody owe you that? This all keeps circling back to somebody who wants something but isn't willing to pay for it.
gjohnson5
New member
Which is exactly my point. Suppose you get into a serious car wreak. You may need different coverage for the hospital stay, ER , prescriptions, ICU (if it's that bad) , anasthesia ... the list goes on. The critical coverage is defined by the insurance company so what is covers is different from carrier to carrier.
*edit*
I know I used the word "visit" as if it was an voluntary trip to the hospital. That wasn't what I meant.
*edit*
mrplunkey
New member
Catastrophic health insurance is very high deductible care. In your catastrophic car wreck example, you'd quickly hit your cap and be done paying.
PICK3
New member
ololololol! @ Plunkey paying for my DRE's!
mrplunkey
New member
It's your right!!!!!!
