Brainfade Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 I am even embarrassed to ask it, but can something be decreased 3000 %?
Brainfade Posted March 17, 2010 Author Posted March 17, 2010 Is it related to health care bill ? :hmmm: That's where I first heard it. I read something where the President made a statement saying that premiums would go down by 3000%. And I wondered how that was even possible. And then, my introspective self-doubt crept in ... and I asked here. Today, the WH has released a clarification: Apparently, he meant $3000, not 3000%. Should've written it on his palm.
Ram Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 Cut the dude some slack. After all, he's got the toughest job in the world.
Lurker Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 3000% or 3000$, the man has been very disappointing thus far.
punjabi_khota Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 That's where I first heard it. I read something where the President made a statement saying that premiums would go down by 3000%. And I wondered how that was even possible. And then, my introspective self-doubt crept in ... and I asked here. Today, the WH has released a clarification: Apparently, he meant $3000, not 3000%. Should've written it on his palm. He is more of the palm-pilot type :giggle: So he should have entered on his palm. :two_thumbs_up: Have the blondes on Fox already caught on this error or are they busy spouting random survery results about how many % people disapprove of the new healthcare bill by asking people on medicare ? :hmmm:
punjabi_khota Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 3000% or 3000$' date=' the man has been very disappointing thus far.[/quote'] The republicans are behaving like the left parties in India..blindly opposing anything put forward by the govt.
Clarke Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 The republicans are behaving like the left parties in India..blindly opposing anything put forward by the govt. 51 votes is all u need .. use that for the most important policies & shove it down their throat like King George did with the tax cuts. Even though it will have disadvantages like the scope of the bill and timing, but things are already delayed if one goes by the original plans.
Brainfade Posted March 17, 2010 Author Posted March 17, 2010 He is more of the palm-pilot type :giggle: So he should have entered on his palm. :two_thumbs_up: Have the blondes on Fox already caught on this error or are they busy spouting random survery results about how many % people disapprove of the new healthcare bill by asking people on medicare ? :hmmm: Have you considered that their random survey may mirrorthese statistically sound ones? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Favor-Oppose-Obama-Healthcare-Plan.aspx Oh well ...
Lurker Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 The republicans are behaving like the left parties in India..blindly opposing anything put forward by the govt. That they always do, nothing new about it really. What has been the bane is the greed amongst the Democrats themselves. With the majority that they enjoy, and the overwhelming support for Obama this is really as good as it is gonna get for any politcian in USA. If they are still failing to deliver well....
punjabi_khota Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 Have you considered that their random survey may mirrorthese statistically sound ones? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Favor-Oppose-Obama-Healthcare-Plan.aspx Oh well ... Blondie was claiming 73% oppose....I don't see more than 55% oppose in your link...:hmmmm2:
Clarke Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 That they always do' date=' nothing new about it really. What has been the bane is the greed amongst the Democrats themselves. With the majority that they enjoy, and the overwhelming support for Obama this is really as good as it is gonna get for any politcian in USA. If they are still failing to deliver well....[/quote'] I reckon that speaks about the majority of the country itself being pro-conservative in nature (supporting those claiming to be conservatives in this case). In most cases, a southern democrat is a democrat not by policies but by having to run against the republican. In other words, the west coast republican is far more right than a southern democrat in general.
Ram Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 Fox news and their ridiculous polls.. At one point, 65% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, thats how immature and naive they're. So now when the same American populace say they 'oppose' healthcare reform, how seriously should we take it? FACT is, Barack Obama the Democract, thumped his Republican opponent John McCain in a presidential election about 15 months ago. Fox news and their conservative cohorts can go suck on that.
Clarke Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 Damn the fox news polls, if everything was run by means of referendums and plebiscites, the country would be in a much worse hole than California. U give people a chance to decide everything, there will be a law on free unlimited beer as a fundamental right. Thats the whole point of a representative democracy, ur supposed to have people smarter than the average joe the plumber (bush/palin excluded) running the show.
Brainfade Posted March 18, 2010 Author Posted March 18, 2010 Blondie was claiming 73% oppose....I don't see more than 55% oppose in your link...:hmmmm2: As today's teenagers would say - "Isn't that --- like --- obvious? Viewership on FoxNews is overwhelmingly Republican. If the country really wanted *this* healthcare "reform" bill, the Gallup and Rasmussen polls would show that, no? And, by the way, what is wrong with "Medicare" Americans? They need the most care, and they seem to have take the biggest hit with this bill. I agree with what Clarke; with issues as important as healthcare, public opinion should not necessarily sway gov't policy. In this case however, the majority is right - the bill does nothing to decrease overall costs, does nothing for tort reform, does nothing to ensure doctors receive payments from gov't plans (Medicare), does everything to switch the decision-making about healthcare from big private insurance carriers to an even bigger carrier - the government (which has already mucked up M'care, M'aid and SS). The only good thing it accomplishes is removing the denial for pre-existing conditions if someone had prior insurance (yes, kumble_rocks, if you are lurking, I agree now that it is a good thing). In a nutshell - he is squashing a mosquito with an expensive jackhammer. Oh, and did you realize how Obama - in just over a year - has already brought the number of uninsured down from 47 million to 30+ million? Amazing!! :--D:--D
Nova Posted March 18, 2010 Posted March 18, 2010 The only good thing it accomplishes is removing the denial for pre-existing conditions. That itself is a good enough reason for this bill to pass. Plus the government option is not going to be the ONLY choice out there. I don't get the fuss why so many people are opposing this.
Brainfade Posted March 19, 2010 Author Posted March 19, 2010 I don't get the fuss why so many people are opposing this. For your reading pleasure :--D http://www.newsweek.com/id/234953?GT1=43002 What we need from the next president is somebody who will not just tell you what they think you want to hear but will tell you what you need to hear." —Barack Obama, Feb. 27, 2008 One job of presidents is to educate Americans about crucial national problems. On health care, Barack Obama has failed. Almost everything you think you know about health care is probably wrong or, at least, half wrong. Great simplicities and distortions have been peddled in the name of achieving "universal health coverage." The miseducation has worsened as the debate approaches its climax. There's a parallel here: housing. Most Americans favor homeownership, but uncritical pro-homeownership policies (lax lending standards, puny down payments, hefty housing subsidies) helped cause the financial crisis. The same thing is happening with health care. The appeal of universal insurance—who, by the way, wants to be uninsured?—justifies half-truths and dubious policies. That the process is repeating itself suggests that our political leaders don't learn even from proximate calamities. How often, for example, have you heard the emergency-room argument? The uninsured, it's said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That's expensive and ineffective. Once they're insured, they'll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it's untrue. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase. You probably think that insuring the uninsured will dramatically improve the nation's health. The uninsured don't get care or don't get it soon enough. With insurance, they won't be shortchanged; they'll be healthier. Simple. Think again. I've written before that expanding health insurance would result, at best, in modest health gains. Studies of insurance's effects on health are hard to perform. Some find benefits; others don't. Medicare's introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn't find gains. In the Atlantic recently, economics writer Megan McArdle examined the literature and emerged skeptical. Claims that the uninsured suffer tens of thousands of premature deaths are "open to question." Conceivably, the "lack of health insurance has no more impact on your health than lack of flood insurance," she writes. How could this be? No one knows, but possible explanations include: (a) many uninsured are fairly healthy—about two-fifths are age 18 to 34; (b) some are too sick to be helped or have problems rooted in personal behaviors—smoking, diet, drinking or drug abuse; and © the uninsured already receive 50 to 70 percent of the care of the insured from hospitals, clinics and doctors, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. Though it seems compelling, covering the uninsured is not the health-care system's major problem. The big problem is uncontrolled spending, which prices people out of the market and burdens government budgets. Obama claims his proposal checks spending. Just the opposite. When people get insurance, they use more health services. Spending rises. By the government's latest forecast, health spending goes from 17 percent of the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019. Health "reform" would probably increase that. Unless we change the fee-for-service system, costs will remain hard to control because providers are paid more for doing more. Obama might have attempted that by proposing health-care vouchers (limited amounts to be spent on insurance), which would force a restructuring of delivery systems to compete on quality and cost. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies would have to reorganize care. Obama refrained from that fight and instead cast insurance companies as the villains. He's telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to know. Whatever their sins, insurers are mainly intermediaries; they pass along the costs of the delivery system. In 2009, the largest 14 insurers had profits of roughly $9 billion; that approached 0.4 percent of total health spending of $2.472 trillion. This hardly explains high health costs. What people need to know is that Obama's plan evades health care's major problems and would worsen the budget outlook. It's a big new spending program when government hasn't paid for the spending programs it already has. "If not now, when? If not us, who?" Obama asks. The answer is: It's not now, and it's not "us." Pass or not, Obama's proposal is the illusion of "reform," not the real thing. As for your take on pre-existing conditions - as good an intent as it has, the proposed policy needs to be carefully monitored. It is rife with fraud possibilities. Think about it - I have no insurance, I get diagnosed with diabetes, I decide to buy insurance now? Makes no sense. Also, did you realize you were going to get fined ~ $2,000 or 2% of your income (whichever is higher) if you chose not to have insurance (unless you are an illegal immigrant). Welcome to Amreekan babugiri. http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/IRS_Power_Report.pdf
Nova Posted March 19, 2010 Posted March 19, 2010 ^ That article didn't teach me anything new. Hospital bills are humongous and this bill will take care of that for a lot of people who are currently uninsured. So what if this is a socialist approach, it's not like the services are free. Who is getting insurance for free in this scheme? No one...it is partly government subsidized. It's the middle approach without making it entirely free. Let the rich help out a bit to the poor...I got no problem with that. Republicans spent billions of tax dollars for wars and here we have a better use of the tax money. I hope the bill passes.
Recommended Posts