Obamacare more expensive

[Artemis]

What do you propose we do when the U.S. government collapses due to financial weakness?

Think about this:

Republicans and conservative media are cherry-picking a figure in a new Congressional Budget Office spending estimate (PDF) to assert that the cost of “Obamacare†has nearly doubled to $1.76 trillion.

$1.76 trillion, ok?

Cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date:The White House says the total amount appropriated for war-related activities of the Department of Defense, intelligence and State Department since 2001 is about $1.3 trillion, and that would rise to nearly $1.4 trillion in 2012.

Total projected cost of the war:the final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (www.costsofwar.org)

Sources: cost of Obamacare is according to the Republican party. Cost o fwar is the think-tank cost: news source Reuters.

So Jericho, the reason the USA is running out of money is because it has engaged in a pointless, bloody and ultimately un-winnable war which would pay for the cost of Obamacare twice over.

Your comment please?

[fakepigtails73]

Well, that's what I find even more hypocritical. Rightwingers generally are happy to fund a lot of military action in the Middle East but any tax they dislike is labelled as 'stealing'.

I just hate how it's this attitude of 'I want to help the poor...but only on MY terms'. It's selfish. I just don't get how you (generic you) can see people suffering and unable to afford treatment and say they should find the money, and that taking away insurance will remove charity. Firstly, that's not true, and secondly, it's incredibly patronising. Maybe those people don't want charity and furthermore, I just don't see why you should have to afford treatment. You shouldn't have to struggle economically due to your health.

ETA: A question for Jericho in the first post of this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8632

It's like the tea party says: "We want small government." Except that they want a huge military, tons of police and border guards + the power to control women's uterus by restricting abortion rights and messing with contraception. Or when they use the word "liberty". Yeah, liberty to put pot smokers in jail, liberty to tell women to shut their legs. Liberty to put religion everywhere and anywhere (their religion, a Dominionist Protestant branch of Christianity).

Not only the right to keep a rifle at home (which I'm ok with, see Switzerland for a country with a great gun policy) but the right to keep AK-47's and various automatics in your bedroom, or the right in some states to have every Dick Tom and Harry to show their manhood by open-carrying a 9mm in a side-holster at Walmart ("just in case something happens in my quaint town where the last homicide was in 2005. Well, you never know!"). The liberty to drive a H3 Hummer that guzzle gas and pollute like a dumptruck, even though the cost of gas prevents you from paying your daughter gymnastic lessons; but hey, it's Obama's fault if gas is so expensive. Wait, weren't they all gungho for the Iraq invasion in '03 ("Saddam attacked us on 9-11!" :roll: ) thinking that after a couple of yrs gas prices would go way down?

Sorry for that rant. I just hope that the GOP won't win in November.

[freejoytoo]

I find it interesting that those who want 'smaller government' are usually the same ones lobbying for control over people's personal lives.

[snarkykitty]

Does anyone understand the concept of preventive care?

Dawn doesn't go to doctors. She doesn't want to pay the several hundred a month for insurance to cover her, her husband and two kids (the cost after her employer pays 50% of premiums) because she doesn't think they need it. (Dawn is a bank professional, so she is educated, has a managerial job, and could have afforded the insurance but there's a whole story about why not - her great uncle that raised her (she and her sibling's parents died at a young age and the kids were split up among different family members to be raised) told her about living in Ireland in the 1940s and not having access to "fancy" doctors)

Dawn gets an ingrown toenail. She sucks it up, wears band-aids and ignores it, because it doesn't hurt that bad. Meanwhile, she has recently put on some weight but chalked it up to hormones and the lack of exercise because her toe hurts too much to walk on it. She also has had some bothersome symptoms but they didn't seem too bad, so he didn't get checked out. She could deal with peeing a bit more, because doesn't that happen to all women who had babies? Feeling tired and sluggish was due to her work schedule, and her blurry eyesight - hey doesn't that happen to everyone after forty?

The ingrown toenail gets infected. She puts neosporin on it but it doesn't help. Her foot gets red and inflamed. Then her ankle starts to swell. It had been about 14 months since she started having pain in her toe and she's ready to do something about it.

She finally goes to the ER asking for Penicillin to treat his infection. They take her blood, asses the wound, checks her breathing, reflexes, circulation, looked at her eyes, nose, ears, etc., and he waits. Doctor comes in after an hour or two.

"Do you have my penicillin" Dawn asks.

"Penicillin isn't going to fix this, Dawn" the doctor tells her.

He also tells her:

- She is Diabetic

- She is morbidly obese

- Has Diabetic neuropathy which is why her toe was hurting

- Diabetes makes it harder for wounds to heal, so an ingrown toenail was just the tip of the iceberg

- Her eyes were blurry because diabetes both causes sugar to build up in the eye, and the beginning stages of Retinopathy

- Her foot and lower leg were red and inflamed because the infection from her infected toe started to spread via her blood.

- The infection is MRSA - not treatable by Penicillin

- The infection is in her blood - called Sepsis

- Her leg has terrible circulation (also made worse by inactivity)

- Her kidneys are damaged are are losing their abiitity to flush her system

Dawn then faced:

- An aggressive blood infection that was quickly spreading throughout her entire lower body

- possible amputation of both legs

- dialysis

- partial blindness

She didn't have a lot of time to think, because of the Sepsis. She went into the ICU for a month.

She emerged from sepsis strong enough to face double amputation of her legs.

She was on dialysis and needed a transplant to get off of it (unlikely)

She slipped into a coma.

She died, only a few months after that ER visit that came more than a year too late.

Her husband and children are now left with millions of dollars in medical costs. They are fighting to keep their very modest condo.

All because she didn't want to pay for monthly insurance.

Dawn is real. She was an inlaw's sister. And now she's dead.

To put it another way, who is going to absorb those costs if they cannot pay the bills? Hospitals can erase them under Indigent care budgets, but overall, those costs are passed along to the rest of us.

[Witsec7]

I find it interesting that those who want 'smaller government' are usually the same ones lobbying for control over people's personal lives.

That government must be small enough to fit into someone's uterus.

[Guest Anonymous]

Doesn't this sound like someone who is here to snark on fundies?

What about personal responsibility? Some victims SHOULD be held responsible. Responsible for not looking into facts, accepting things blindly, and following something without any discernment. These are all faults of the victim. I think some people are so afraid of offending the victim that they refuse to give any blame to them.

That was on the subject of why spiritually abusive leaders like Bill Gothard and Doug Phillips should be held responsible for the harm they cause.

He's also defended Chik-fil-a, Focus on the Family, and Sherwood Pictures.

Here's a little sample of his dumbassery, of course you can view his profile if you want the whole picture in context.

If you ask me, this is the one thing fundie girls have going for them. Modern American teenagers are an embarrassment to society and to the future of our country. While I don't agree in several ways with how many fundie families raise their kids, at least they are not influenced by the dumbed down culture that exists now. And its not just fundies, there are a lot of smart teens that take life seriously who have nothing to do with a fundamentalist religion. I commend any youth who acts respectfully, intelligent, mature and who doesn't just follow the mind numbing typical teen crowd.

Overly sheltered fundie girls are more mature than modern American teens.

Early 1900's. I would try again. Here are some photos of what happened to children in poverty at that time.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Single mothers? To the 1900's with you!

Because the women are cared for by someone who is most likely a volunteer or low paid staff and has more of a heart for the person. Also, the money of the organization is used more efficient than government funds, so dollars are stretched and help more people.

Low paid staff or people who work for free are better than doctors - for women. That's not at all a problem. :roll:

I am against abortion. I believe God has a plan for every living person. I also believe abortion is used primarily as a method of convenience.

Facts be damned, he believes it, so it's true.

I'm not going there. I just agree with outlawing it.

He spent forever dodging this one before rendering his final verdict:

Okay you want me to answer a certain "tough" question. Here we go.

Q. What, in your opinion, would be the apt punishment for a woman who has an abortion and what punishment would her medical provider receive?

A. I know this is the question that abortion rights people use to try and trap up pro-lifers, but the answer must be one of tough love. I believe the woman and the doctor should be held to the same laws as murder. If not then the whole argument for life is invalid. When the woman in Texas drowned her five children several years ago, I could not justify what she did because she had some rough times at home. The same must be said of abortion if it were illegal. You can say I don't care about the woman who have abortions, but that is simply not true. I am all for helping them as much as possible. I financially support an organization that helps women who both have had and have not had abortions. This thread has strayed off into a debate about big government. Don't let that make you think that I don't care about helping women. My beef with big government programs is that most are not efficient. They waste tax dollars with no regard to where they came from or how well they are being used. This does not mean I don't support helping women in crisis pregnancy situations. These are two totally different issues.

You're okay with the death penalty for women who have abortions, but you're not a misogynist? (Is he the one that wanted to lock treemom up? Or make her pick up trash on the side of the road to teach her a lesson? Or was that a different fundie?)

If your book of fairy tales claimed to be the Word of God and had historical evidence from thousands of years to back up that what was in it really happened, then I might give it some credibility.

Fundies think they have the one true answer and everyone else is wrong. Because formergothardite doesn't base her views on the Bible, jericho tells her that she has no basis for them at all. jericho = fundie.

It's funny that I keep getting accused of being a slimeball and not answering all the questions. I am one person who is getting bombarded with comments by everyone else on this thread. The one main question I have not answered is about homosexuality. So I'll put it very simply. My view is the biblical view. Read the Bible, that's what I believe. Ask me anything else, I'll simply tell you to read what the Bible says. I'm not going to get into a long debate.

I would guess he's another one that wants to throw rocks at gay people until they're dead, but I don't think he ever outright admitted it. He's often too slimy to own his opinions.

Hey, might as well since its so easy to get it around here.

And this concludes my presentation on why jericho is an attention whoring fundie troll. There was far more material, but I'm bored now and reading his words makes me feel like I've gone swimming in the sewer.

[Artemis]

I notice he's slithered off in his own slime -

and as far as small government being as small as a woman's vagina:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/13/1074013/-Hilarious-VA-Right-Wingnut-Sen-Ryan-McDougle-Gets-a-Taste-of-His-Own-Transvaginal-Medicine-

Wish I could post the image down the page - you need to scroll down - but it won't.

Dawn's story is heartbreaking.

[Witsec7]

I could be giving up the bacon bra for this one.

[Artemis]

Thank you! I was rolling round the floor with that one and my daughters thought I'd gone crazy. It is so FJ in spirit

[Witsec7]

Thank you! I was rolling round the floor with that one and my daughters thought I'd gone crazy. It is so FJ in spirit

I've sent it off to my DD, I should have it on a button by nightfall :lol:

[jericho]

Think about this:

Republicans and conservative media are cherry-picking a figure in a new Congressional Budget Office spending estimate (PDF) to assert that the cost of “Obamacare†has nearly doubled to $1.76 trillion.

$1.76 trillion, ok?

Cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date:The White House says the total amount appropriated for war-related activities of the Department of Defense, intelligence and State Department since 2001 is about $1.3 trillion, and that would rise to nearly $1.4 trillion in 2012.

Total projected cost of the war:the final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (http://www.costsofwar.org)

Sources: cost of Obamacare is according to the Republican party. Cost o fwar is the think-tank cost: news source Reuters.

So Jericho, the reason the USA is running out of money is because it has engaged in a pointless, bloody and ultimately un-winnable war which would pay for the cost of Obamacare twice over.

Your comment please?

Since Obama took office the debt has gone up $5 trillion. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/30/as-debt-ceiling-skyrockets-obama-no-longer-calling-bush-increases-unpatriotic/ The war is pocket change in that amount.

Also, you can't just compare costs of one item to a totally different item. For example, buying a new car is not compatible to buying a new computer. Foreign affairs and national security are one of the most expensive sectors of the government. Could they be more efficient? Absolutely, and I'm all for that.

Here's an example of how much health care costs are increasing already since Obamacare (and its just begun!) The Milliman Medical Index has figured a 7.3% increase for a family of four covered by a preferred-provider organization over 2010. And the Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest survey of employer-based health benefits reported a significant increase of 9.5 percent from 2010 to 2011. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/14/obamacare-costs-skyrocket-even-pre-launch/

[Witsec7]

Okay, jericho

How do you think that health care for the poor and lower middle class should be handled? What is your solution?

Does it bother you that we spend so much on wars and yet not as much on health care?

I would like to hear the answer to this question.

[shesinsane]

Troll Jericho didn't answer my question. How can you call yourself a Christian but be opposed to healing the sick? Because "Obamacare" isn't wasting government money on some study of the life cycle of the squirrel, it's helping sick people get well and keeping well people from being sick.

What kind of Christian thinks money is more important than human life? You started a thread about the cost of "Obamacare", you seem much more concerned about finances than the reality of sick people dying from treatable issues due to lack of insurance.

[jericho]

I would like to hear the answer to this question.

I have answered this many times already. Health care and special needs for the poor should be handled by private charities. There should be a government safety net for the poor, but not an ongoing solution.

It does not bother me that we spend more on national security and foreign affairs because that is maybe the most costly part of government. Without it, we would not have a country left to need healthcare.

[Witsec7]

I have answered this many times already. Health care and special needs for the poor should be handled by private charities. There should be a government safety net for the poor, but not an ongoing solution.

It does not bother me that we spend more on national security and foreign affairs because that is maybe the most costly part of government. Without it, we would not have a country left to need healthcare.

How will these issues be handled by private charities. What kind of a govt safety net, at what income levels does it commence?

[jericho]

Troll Jericho didn't answer my question. How can you call yourself a Christian but be opposed to healing the sick? Because "Obamacare" isn't wasting government money on some study of the life cycle of the squirrel, it's helping sick people get well and keeping well people from being sick.

What kind of Christian thinks money is more important than human life? You started a thread about the cost of "Obamacare", you seem much more concerned about finances than the reality of sick people dying from treatable issues due to lack of insurance.

As I have said many times. I am not against helping the poor and sick. I am concerned for them and want to help them. But I am against the government having a huge part in it. I am ALSO concerned about our national debt growing rapidly, faster than any time in history. I am also concerned that wacko environmentalist lobbyists are getting money for the studies of the life cycle of the squirrel (and other ridiculous money wasting projects) and we can't get congress to stop spending it.

[jericho]

How will these issues be handled by private charities. What kind of a govt safety net, at what income levels does it commence?

Am I running for president? This is the reason you think I avoid the questions. They become unanswerable. You get deeper and deeper until I might as well earn a noble prize for my answers.

[Visionoyahweh]

As I have said many times. I am not against helping the poor and sick. I am concerned for them and want to help them. But I am against the government having a huge part in it. I am ALSO concerned about our national debt growing rapidly, faster than any time in history. I am also concerned that wacko environmentalist lobbyists are getting money for the studies of the life cycle of the squirrel (and other ridiculous money wasting projects) and we can't get congress to stop spending it.

'I want to give the illusion of compassion, without actually doing anything.' Pharisee.

God also commands us to love the environment and be good steward. Don't go there.

Research into squirrels could eventually lead to a cure for cancer, or some other way to lower healthcare costs. That's how science works.

[Artemis]

'Also, you can't just compare costs of one item to a totally different item. For example, buying a new car is not compatible to buying a new computer.'

Duh, I wasn't comparing the costs, so please don't patronise me.

My point was that if you weren't spending all that money on wars you could spending on improving the health of your citizens. To use your analogy, if you didn't spend the money on a computer you could spend it on the car. If you hadn't gotten yourselves involved in war, you could be spending on healthcare.

(And so could we - one of the things that Tony Blair was hated most for was his arse-licking of Bush and his lying to us to lead us into a war that WE didn't want and that YOU started, because it has crippled us financially.)

I'm going to go and check out your statistics and I'll get back to you, but I'd like to know the political affiliations of the organisations you draw them from. I also notice that it is 5pm with you but 10pm with me, so I am going to bed in a minute too, before I turn into a pumpkin.

ETA sorting out typos and also because, Jericho, it's a NOBEL prize, as in Alfred Nobel, who founded them. I also wish to address your issue of private charities, but since that will be a long post, I'll put a new thread on it in Chatter tomorrow, as there's a lot of history involved.

[Witsec7]

Am I running for president?,in your mind This is the reason you think I avoid the questions.They become unanswerable nonanswers only work on SODRT. You get deeper and deeper until I might as well earn a noble prize for my answers. don't flatter yourself

[jericho]

'Also, you can't just compare costs of one item to a totally different item. For example, buying a new car is not compatible to buying a new computer.'

Duh, I wasn'tcomparing the costs, so please don't patronise me.

My point was that if you weren't spending all that money on wars you could spending on improving the health of your citizens. To use your analogy, if you didn't spend the money on a computer you could spend it on the car. If you hadn't gotten yourselves involved in war, you could be spending on healthcare.

(And so could we - one of the things that Tony Blair was hated most for was his arse-licking of Bush and his lying to us to lead us into a war that WE didn't want and that YOU started, because it has crippled us financially.)

I'm going to go and check out your statistics and I'll get back to you, but I'd like to know the political affiliations of the organisations you draw them from. I also notice that it is 5pm with you but 10pm with me, so I am going to bed in a minute too, before i turn into a pumpkin.

I said I was very much for efficiency. I don't approve of everything that Bush did with the war, but we still need to be spending on a lot of money on foreign affairs. But I want it to be more efficient and smart. Take that money and do something else efficient with it and so on. I think we are in agreement in principle, we just disagree with how to implement it.

[freejoytoo]

And you don't think using it to provide decent, stable healthcare for everyone is efficient?

[emmiedahl]

As I have said many times. I am not against helping the poor and sick. I am concerned for them and want to help them. But I am against the government having a huge part in it. I am ALSO concerned about our national debt growing rapidly, faster than any time in history. I am also concerned that wacko environmentalist lobbyists are getting money for the studies of the life cycle of the squirrel (and other ridiculous money wasting projects) and we can't get congress to stop spending it.

Jericho, no one is stopping you from helping. If you think private charity can be as effective as public safety nets, start acting. Pool money with others at your church and begin approaching people on welfare. Tell them you will give them cash to cover their needs in the amount the government is. It should not come to more than $2000 per household per month. If you offer them long-term help in exchange for getting off government services, I assure you they will do so. If all churches did this, there would be no need for social welfare programs. Problem solved.

Obama originally wanted a cheaper plan, something like various European countries have. This would have provided more care for more people with less money than we have spent on health care in decades. But you were here, so you know the rest of the story. Be sure to write your Republican congressmen and thank them for this monster of a bill! Because they are the reason we will be spending more for less care than we deserve.

[jericho]

And you don't think using it to provide decent, stable healthcare for everyone is efficient?

I think the government getting out of healthcare would be the most efficient. Let capitalism do its work.

[jericho]

Jericho, no one is stopping you from helping. If you think private charity can be as effective as public safety nets, start acting. Pool money with others at your church and begin approaching people on welfare. Tell them you will give them cash to cover their needs in the amount the government is. It should not come to more than $2000 per household per month. If you offer them long-term help in exchange for getting off government services, I assure you they will do so. If all churches did this, there would be no need for social welfare programs. Problem solved.

Obama originally wanted a cheaper plan, something like various European countries have. This would have provided more care for more people with less money than we have spent on health care in decades. But you were here, so you know the rest of the story. Be sure to write your Republican congressmen and thank them for this monster of a bill! Because they are the reason we will be spending more for less care than we deserve.

Well, Obama signed that bill, Behind closed doors, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT!