Bipartisan push to repeal medical device tax gains traction in Senate

[superpunk]

yes, your "nothing at all is wrong with this system" stance is super adult-ey.

 

[VTA]

No U.

 

[junk]

Well then what are the issues?

Holy cow you are horrible.

Let's start with cost. The U.S. government spent something like $882 billion on healthcare in 2012

Only larger expense was defense

My question (again). Is it ok (according to you)now or if not when?

 

[VTA]

Holy cow you are horrible.

Let's start with cost. The U.S. government spent something like $882 billion on healthcare in 2012

Only larger expense was defense

My question (again). Is it ok (according to you)now or if not when?

What do you mean Government spent? Who did they spend it on, and where did the funds come from? For example, was the brunt of it for Medicare and is that Medicare funded by the tax payer?

From my greatest recollection, the problem with our system was that a percentage isn't covered and you're a terrible person if you don't want to help them.

So the answer is what? The government who just spent billions on health care wants to add to that by expanding it's offerings to previously uncovered individuals? And this will somehow drive down costs, while magically offering care for those individuals? Some sort of subtraction by addition voodoo?

It was ok. Not perfect, not horrible and certainly not something that the government can manage to do better with. Like I said it is a false argument, because it hardly addresses the reality of people without coverage. Helping people requires individual and personal interest from you guessed it individuals. Not faceless bureaucracies answerable to no one, while siphoning cash from your pocket.

 

[junk]

What do you mean Government spent? Who did they spend it on, and where did the funds come from? For example, was the brunt of it for Medicare and is that Medicare funded by the tax payer?

From my greatest recollection, the problem with our system was that a percentage isn't covered and you're a terrible person if you don't want to help them.

So the answer is what? The government who just spent billions on health care wants to add to that by expanding it's offerings to previously uncovered individuals? And this will somehow drive down costs, while magically offering care for those individuals? Some sort of subtraction by addition voodoo?

It was ok. Not perfect, not horrible and certainly not something that the government can manage to do better with. Like I said it is a false argument, because it hardly addresses the reality of people without coverage. Helping people requires individual and personal interest from you guessed it individuals. Not faceless bureaucracies answerable to no one, while siphoning cash from your pocket.

That is what I thought. You were making assumptions on what I thought the problem was. Where did I say anything about additional coverage?

Cost is my biggest concern. Not only the amount spent by the government but the amount spent by individuals and businesses. Drive down cost and coverage will increase anyway

My question to JBond was legit. I'm not trolling. I see healthcare as a cost issue and I'm curious what people propose to address that.

I'm far from an expert. I just know we spend too much on it as a country

 

[JBond]

So apparently you don't see any issues. I do. I think healthcare is an issue needing resolution. So, my question stands.

Hey Juke...Nice to have a conversation with an adult...

There is no perfect solution and no amount of money will change that fact, but there are things that can be done. In addition to the list below I pulled from an article, I would add tort reform to the list.

First, Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher and the freedom to choose any health plan on the market. Vouchers would be means-tested, would contain Medicare spending, and are the only way to protect seniors from government rationing.

Second, to give workers control over their health care dollars, Congress should reform the tax treatment of health care with “large” health savings accounts. Large HSAs would reduce the number of uninsured Americans, would free workers to purchase secure health coverage from any source, and would effectively give workers a $9.7 trillion tax cut without increasing the federal budget deficit.

Third, Congress should break up state monopolies on insurance and clinician licensing. Allowing consumers to purchase health insurance licensed by other states could cover one-third of the uninsured without any new taxes or government subsidies.

Finally, Congress should reform Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program the way it reformed welfare in 1996. Block-granting those programs would reduce the deficit and encourage states to target resources to the truly needy.

The great advantage of a free market is that innovation and more prudent decision making means that fewer patients will fall through the cracks.

 

[VTA]

That is what I thought. You were making assumptions on what I thought the problem was. Where did I say anything about additional coverage?

Cost is my biggest concern. Not only the amount spent by the government but the amount spent by individuals and businesses. Drive down cost and coverage will increase anyway

My question to JBond was legit. I'm not trolling. I see healthcare as a cost issue and I'm curious what people propose to address that.

I'm far from an expert. I just know we spend too much on it as a country

I didn't think you were trolling… I thought you were engaging in conversation and I replied. I also am not assuming your end of it; you mentioned cost and I replied with Obamacare not being a viable answer for sky-rocketing costs.

If costs for all are a problem, I'm not sure how costs are being lowered by Obamacare. Apparently it's driving up insurance costs and in the end tax payer Joe is hit from both agles; higher taxation and higher premiums. That sounds a lot like a counter-consequence to the stated goal of the proponents and architect of this thing.

So if the question is how to drive down costs, a centralized monopoly isn't going to do it. The only thing that can drive down costs is allowing for greater availability and variety in choices. That's simply business. The answer is ask why costs have risen and audit the system, i.e. supply and demand of resources, etc.

If anyone on either side of the aisle were honest, they'd raise these concerns from the angle of what is driving up costs and not talk about creating a government monopoly. Not skewing numbers and pretending it has something to do with altruism.

 

[junk]

I didn't think you were trolling… I thought you were engaging in conversation and I replied. I also am not assuming your end of it; you mentioned cost and I replied with Obamacare not being a viable answer for sky-rocketing costs.

If costs for all are a problem, I'm not sure how costs are being lowered by Obamacare. Apparently it's driving up insurance costs and in the end tax payer Joe is hit from both agles; higher taxation and higher premiums. That sounds a lot like a counter-consequence to the stated goal of the proponents and architect of this thing.

So if the question is how to drive down costs, a centralized monopoly isn't going to do it. The only thing that can drive down costs is allowing for greater availability and variety in choices. That's simply business. The answer is ask why costs have risen and audit the system, i.e. supply and demand of resources, etc.

If anyone on either side of the aisle were honest, they'd raise these concerns from the angle of what is driving up costs and not talk about creating a government monopoly. Not skewing numbers and pretending it has something to do with altruism.

Again, where did I talk about Obamacare?

I simply asked how JBond would address it. Which he answered. Your replies lead me to believe you think I am coming at this from sort of angle. I'm not

So back to my question to you, which you haven't answered yet, at one point in time you seemed to think the system was not an issue? When was that?

For the most part, I agree with your last two paragraphs

 

[JBond]

Again, where did I talk about Obamacare?

I simply asked how JBond would address it. Which he answered. Your replies lead me to believe you think I am coming at this from sort of angle. I'm not

So back to my question to you, which you haven't answered yet, at one point in time you seemed to think the system was not an issue? When was that?

For the most part, I agree with your last two paragraphs

any thoughts on my answer?

 

[superpunk]

Your answer is just a c&p of nonsense republican talking points.

 

[JBond]

Your answer is just a c&p of nonsense republican talking points.

Pipe down little one. Children are to be seen and not heard. The adults are talking right now.

 

[junk]

any thoughts on my answer?

Yeah on my phone now though so ill respond more later this evening

 

[VTA]

Again, where did I talk about Obamacare?

I simply asked how JBond would address it. Which he answered. Your replies lead me to believe you think I am coming at this from sort of angle. I'm not

So back to my question to you, which you haven't answered yet, at one point in time you seemed to think the system was not an issue? When was that?

For the most part, I agree with your last two paragraphs

Never. A system that works doesn't suddenly change and no longer work. If a 'system' is no longer adequate you look to the people implementing it, because a system is only as good as the people who influence it. If our healthcare system is no longer seen as adequate, and frankly I think that's a matter of suggestion and half truths for political purposes, then we should scrutinize ourselves.

The system allowed us to flourish, there's no need to think it needs to be revamped because a generation is entirely mishandling it. If a natural evolution occurs and the system needs altering are all aspects of it being considered? Is it being politicized with hot-button press words or are the people at the fore-front of the movement scrutinizing all possible causes and offering viable options?

If costs are a problem why are they a problem? Is it spending and mis-management or is it supply and demand for reources? Is it dishonesty? What never seems to be connected are energy and overall oil costs. 95% of hospital equiment are petroleum products (plastics), wouldn't it seem reasonable to recognize that if oil prices sky rocket so will supply prices? So will costs?

 

[junk]

Second, to give workers control over their health care dollars, Congress should reform the tax treatment of health care with “large” health savings accounts. Large HSAs would reduce the number of uninsured Americans, would free workers to purchase secure health coverage from any source, and would effectively give workers a $9.7 trillion tax cut without increasing the federal budget deficit.

Explain this to me. My company is going to a new high deductible plan with a larger health savings account. I'm not a big fan as it is going to be a lot more out of my pocket for......well, basically any sort of health care. They tout this as being "more responsible" with your health care, but honestly, I think it will keep people away from doctors longer.

I'm not a frequent visitor to the doctor, but if I do, I want good care and I don't want to be 6 digits out of pocket if I have to spend a night in the hospital.

Third, Congress should break up state monopolies on insurance and clinician licensing. Allowing consumers to purchase health insurance licensed by other states could cover one-third of the uninsured without any new taxes or government subsidies.

Finally, Congress should reform Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program the way it reformed welfare in 1996. Block-granting those programs would reduce the deficit and encourage states to target resources to the truly needy.

The great advantage of a free market is that innovation and more prudent decision making means that fewer patients will fall through the cracks.

How restrictive is the health care industry though? I would assume most employers have options to shop around for rates, no?

I think the third party payer is the bigger issue.

I just don't see free market driving down costs in this case. It almost feels like it is something that should be regulated like the utility industry. Limit the amount of profits allowable under law for healthcare.

 

[junk]

If costs are a problem why are they a problem? Is it spending and mis-management or is it supply and demand for reources? Is it dishonesty? What never seems to be connected are energy and overall oil costs. 95% of hospital equiment are petroleum products (plastics), wouldn't it seem reasonable to recognize that if oil prices sky rocket so will supply prices? So will costs?

Healthcare is a dramatically changing industry. People are living much longer and we have the huge baby boomer generation hitting the health care industry hard. Care is improving and costs are going up as a result. More people demanding more services. The problem is that they are probably largely receiving healthcare through Medicare which is government subsidized. As a result, government expenditures go up. However, your tax base isn't increasing as these large numbers entering retirement are reducing their tax contributions. It's turning upside down. That is what is changing.

Oil costs.....I can't believe that would be anything other than negligible in the grand scheme of things.

 

[VTA]

Healthcare is a dramatically changing industry. People are living much longer and we have the huge baby boomer generation hitting the health care industry hard. Care is improving and costs are going up as a result. More people demanding more services. The problem is that they are probably largely receiving healthcare through Medicare which is government subsidized. As a result, government expenditures go up. However, your tax base isn't increasing as these large numbers entering retirement are reducing their tax contributions. It's turning upside down. That is what is changing.

Oil costs.....I can't believe that would be anything other than negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Why? It effects the price of everything. There is nothing in our civilization untouched by it because most of our products are petroleum based. I'm not suggesting it's the real or sole problem, but if we're going to talk about driving up costs, what isn't considered? Not supply and demand and not rising energy costs?

The population has nearly doubled since the baby boom generation, the number of people in the work force has almost tripled. Why wouldn't that make up for the absence of the retirees contributions?