If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Day of Reckoning 1arrives as Medicare system begins spending more than it takes in this year, will be broke by 2019   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 170
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6364 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2004 at 2:45 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-03-23 03:34:43 PM
Hannahman


Caliban:

If a doctor tries to measure brain activity and there is none... a person is dead. It isn't hard to keep the heart beating and lungs working with stimulus but they are dead. There is no arrogance or guesswork involved. A person whose brain does not function is dead.


Not arguing the facts. Just arguing the government's right to tell me when I'm not worth keeping alive.

spliffybigfeet


caliban:

that was my point (without the pretty chart): frivolous spending is the problem here. with all that tax/ss/medicare money coming in, the government shouldn't have any trouble maintaining a sound public health system. i was just citing the 1.2 million people currently incarcerated in this country and the ridiculous military spending as 2 examples of wasting money. also, while you pointed out that ss/medicare/medicaid take up more funds than national defense, it is apparent from your chart that defense alone costs more than medicare alone.


The point still stands. The organizations that run SS, medicare/aid and welfare are WASTING more money collectively than the ENTIRE military budget. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

Is there ANYONE here who can justify HOW the government wastes all this money? Anyone?
 
2004-03-23 03:35:52 PM
Socialism sucks ass.

We are on a slow boat to Argentinaville.
Where can I get off?
 
2004-03-23 03:36:40 PM
captainradium


Socialism sucks ass.


You are correct. This discussion is over, and you win. :)
 
2004-03-23 03:37:12 PM
You won't be able to get to the hospital for those drugs that the major pharmaceutical companies have made you dependant on anyway...

/Peak Oil
 
2004-03-23 03:37:30 PM
All of these programs will fail and waste shiatloads of money. Both of the major parties support them in some form.

/vote Libertarian.
 
2004-03-23 03:38:46 PM
Caliban

They aren't keeping you alive. They are simply keeping your body from rotting away. Really. You are dead if you are in that situation. A fully trained and qualified doctor would have already done everything in her power and declared that you're brain does not function and everything that you ever where is gone. At that point there is no moral decision to be made and you fall under the category of "what is the correct way to dispose of a corpse."
 
2004-03-23 03:38:52 PM
Hannahman: The major cost associated with a person getting treatment for an illness is Malpractice Insurance (the amount of money paid is absolutely ridiculous but nothing will be done to regulate tort or remove the license's from doctors with multiple violations.)


Total spending in the US on health care in 2003: $1.55 trillion

Total jury awards for medical malpractice in 2002: $24.6 billion


That would make the medical malpractice costs about 1.5% of the amount we spend as a nation on health care. I would hardly call this a significant amount.
 
2004-03-23 03:39:04 PM
show me

Well than post it already!!

:)
 
2004-03-23 03:39:13 PM
caliban_02
Where did you get that chart from? Medicare spending was $267 billion in 2002, and Federal Medicaid spending was $150 billion (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, www.cms.hhs.gov). I'm not sure where you got your figures, but it seems to be a little bit off.
 
2004-03-23 03:40:32 PM
My head hurts. We didn't have prescription drug coverage in medicare so the liberals whined. Now we give people prescription drug coverage in medicare and the liberals biatch. You guys can't have it both ways. Do you want prescription drug coverage in medicare or not? If you're going to blame Bush for anything, blame him for allowing this boondoggle of a budget to pass in the first place! He's an economic liberal's wet dream. He's certainly not conservative or he'd be balancing the budget like the REAL conservatives did during the 1990's when they took control of Congress (see Newt Gingrich, etc.).
 
2004-03-23 03:40:39 PM
Beefaroni

How about you look up what the average doctor pays per year in malpractice insurance. And, another poke in the right direction, do you think that they just pay that cost or do you think that that cost is passed onto the patient?
 
2004-03-23 03:43:43 PM
Hannahman


What I'm suggesting is that the amount the doctors are paying for malpractice insurance is not connected to a rise in malpractice claims, but rather to a drop in insurance company profits the corresponds to a drop in their stock value over the last few years.

In states where insurance companies have co-opted the doctors into advocating for caps on medical malpractice awards because of the growing burden of malpractice insurance costs, once these caps are in place, the insurance prices have not come down. They never will...this is the greed on the part of the insurance companies, plain and simple.
 
2004-03-23 03:44:42 PM
Hannahman
You can't look at the average cost of malpractice insurance per doctor, because it depends on speciality and highly dependent upon what state you practice in. Besides, isn't that a little off the topic? The major drive in all health care is the cost of technology, and hospital costs as well. I guarantee you the malpractice is not driving the cost of Medicare.
 
2004-03-23 03:45:31 PM
beeferoni
Can you cite any sources?
 
2004-03-23 03:46:53 PM
we keep paying for things that we don't have the money for

I should be able to use my rent $$$ to buy whippits and beer and let someone else worry about that tomorrow thing...
 
2004-03-23 03:48:29 PM
AKnightCowboy: We didn't have prescription drug coverage in medicare so the liberals whined. Now we give people prescription drug coverage in medicare and the liberals biatch. You guys can't have it both ways. Do you want prescription drug coverage in medicare or not?


What the Democrats are upset at are two things:

1) The so-called "doughnut" in the coverage for prescription drugs, where seniors have some coverage up until something like $2500/year, have no coverage for expenses between $2500 and $5000, and then have excellent coverage for costs above $5000.

2) The law prohibits the government from using its huge buying power to negotiate lower bulk drug costs from the drug companies. This is just bad economics...the whole point of the huge government program is that it has unmatched buying power to negotiate substantial savings on drug costs. The GOP bent to the pharmaceutical lobby and made it illegal for the Medicare system to get a break on prices.
 
2004-03-23 03:50:24 PM
Cyclone: Can you cite any sources?

Go back to my 2004-03-23 03:38:52 PM post and click on the links. The first comes from a NY Times article, the second from a thinktank study on tort costs.
 
2004-03-23 03:51:01 PM
Cyclone


caliban_02
Where did you get that chart from? Medicare spending was $267 billion in 2002, and Federal Medicaid spending was $150 billion (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, www.cms.hhs.gov). I'm not sure where you got your figures, but it seems to be a little bit off.


Numbers from here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide02.html

Medicare was 12% of 2.0 trillion (240 bil) and Medicaid was 7% of 2.0 trillion (140 bil) in 2002.

So you and I are pretty close. But you have a good point... just the fact that those numbers are different at all is worrisome... that's not a small amount of money. Thanks for the alternative source!
 
2004-03-23 03:51:49 PM
Cutting taxes puts more money into the hands of the taxpayer to purchase goods and services. That in turn stimulates those industries, grows the economy, and results in more tax revenue. The only thing to do in this situation of budget shortfalls is to drastically cut the tax rates on the rich as much as possible. I suggest cutting the tax rate for those making over $100,000 a year down to 15% and raising taxes on those people who use most of the government goods and services, yet aren't paying their fair share: the poor making under $25k/year. 95% of the taxes come from the wealthiest 50% of the population. That just seems unfair. There's no reason why someone making $10,000 a year shouldn't be expected to contribute at LEAST 10% of their income to the good of the national treasury.
 
2004-03-23 03:52:32 PM
The new medicare perscription drug plan is a map of the bordering crossings into Canada.
 
2004-03-23 03:52:43 PM
Many states are in a malpractice insurance crisis right now. Pennsylvania, where I live, is one of the worst offenders. Many doctors have had their premiums rise 100% in the last few years with no end in sight. Many doctors and leaving the state or simply not doing surgery anymore.

An average doctor pays well over 100,000 dollars a year with premiums like to double in the next 5 years. Specialists and doctors that only do surgery can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. It is rediculous considering that doctors with the vast majority of malpractice cases and 10 percent of doctors account for over 50 percent of the malpractice claims. These doctors should be dealt with and the others should not be forced to charge crazy rates to due to insurance.
 
2004-03-23 03:53:46 PM
Hannahman


Caliban

They aren't keeping you alive. They are simply keeping your body from rotting away. Really. You are dead if you are in that situation. A fully trained and qualified doctor would have already done everything in her power and declared that you're brain does not function and everything that you ever where is gone. At that point there is no moral decision to be made and you fall under the category of "what is the correct way to dispose of a corpse."


I would say that even after brain death you and your family have more right to determine what happens than the government.

But you and I are arguing two different things. You think I'm arguing about whether or not you're actually dead if you're in a vegatitive state -- I don't care. I just don't want the government determining when I can or can't receive healthcare, no matter what state I'm in. I want my healthcare to be based on whatever I can pay for.
 
2004-03-23 03:54:13 PM
I don't see what the big deal is; the healthcare costs are going to plummet as soon as those jobs are off-shored too!! So we won't need nearly as much $$...problem solved..next
 
2004-03-23 03:56:17 PM
beeferoni
The think-tank publication seems to regard investment losses as part of the tort problem, but not a major part. It says, "As was the case in 2001, the largest single contributor to the rise in tort costs in 2002 was a significant upward reassessment of liabilities associated with asbestos claims, whose numbers have continued to mushroom."
 
2004-03-23 03:56:24 PM
I smell a banning!

nice one, asshat. If my boss sees that and I get fired I'm coming after you.
 
2004-03-23 03:56:26 PM
AKnightCowboy


Cutting taxes puts more money into the hands of the taxpayer to purchase goods and services. That in turn stimulates those industries, grows the economy, and results in more tax revenue. The only thing to do in this situation of budget shortfalls is to drastically cut the tax rates on the rich as much as possible. I suggest cutting the tax rate for those making over $100,000 a year down to 15% and raising taxes on those people who use most of the government goods and services, yet aren't paying their fair share: the poor making under $25k/year. 95% of the taxes come from the wealthiest 50% of the population. That just seems unfair. There's no reason why someone making $10,000 a year shouldn't be expected to contribute at LEAST 10% of their income to the good of the national treasury.


See, I would agree that the rich are unfairly burdened with taxes (here come the whiners complaining about evil rich people) but I'm personally in favor of a flat tax. And also, just from an efficiency standpoint, if you tax people who are just going to get the money back right off the bat, there's not much point to taxing them in the first place.
 
2004-03-23 03:56:58 PM
The problem all boils down to holding people accountable. The insurance companies need to be held accountable to ensure that they are raping the people and doctors. The drug companies need to be held accountable to ensure that they are price gouging. The people need to be held accountable to make sure that they are committing insurance fraud. Doctors need to be held accountable to ensure that they aren't just crap doctors. Lawyers need to be held accountable to keep bogus lawsuits and ridiculous settlements to a minimum.

And, finally, the government needs to be held accountable to ensure that they don't screw any of this up.

And, of course, holding people and groups responsible for their actions is quite possibly the most difficult task in life.
 
2004-03-23 03:57:14 PM
"Fair enough. But which do you think is better? Respecting self-reliance and letting people keep the money they earned by working, or treating them like children and taking that money? I know which I'm voting for. I like how you sarcastically refer to "my money" that I work for every day. Are you normally so flippant about other people's possessions?"

Your job (which is predicated on communal education, communal defense, communal tech infrastructure and on and on) is something you have *partly* by dint of your own skills and partly because we have set up society in such a way that those jobs and skills can exist.

I'm not flippant about your money, but you got it at a job that exists partly because we were born into a place that is about more than 'get however much you, personally, can get'. So it's partly yours and partly ours, right?

Having said that, a good government keeps everyone healthy and safe and leaves as much money left in everyone's pockets as possible. There are legitimate disagreements about where that ideal point is.

In my opinion, your self reliance is only possible because we have a society that takes care of the sick and keeps the wage differential fair to the point where poor people aren't constantly looting and stealing just to get by. Your self reliance relies on a lot of things other than yourself. It's not an easy thing for conservatives to admit to, but most of what we've accomplished are things we've accomplished together.

But put it another way: if you are beholden to your job for health care (I have a chronic illness that ensures that I'll spend at least a year or two without coverage every time I switch employers), free market forces can never let employees make smart choices. The market is only fair if we can make good choices based on income and not on whether we have a kid that needs insulin.
 
2004-03-23 03:59:13 PM
Nice. Thanks
 
2004-03-23 04:01:47 PM
Hannahman
You are simply wrong. The average doctor, even in states of "Malpractice Crisis", does not pay over $100,000 in Malpractice premiums. GP's pay less than $25k, and only in Philadelphia do Surgeons and OB/GYNs pay more than $100k. In Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, no one pays more than $100,000. And thats including the MCARE charge.
 
2004-03-23 04:01:53 PM
But, Caliban, surely you don't believe that you are entitled to healthcare when you are ashes in an urn. So why then do you think you should be entitled to any "deathcare" when you are dead in a hospital with a battery hooked up to your heart? Yes, "deathcare" is a loaded term and the support systems that a hospital uses to keep a body functioning is much more complicated than a battery... but still.

And the government wouldn't be the one saying that you are braindead. That would be a doctor. And, any way, after brain death your family has every right to do whatever it wishes to do with your corpse. But you (through your will) and your family do not have the right to take up healthcare resources that the living need. You are dead. Have fun in the afterlife. Let the nurses and doctors help others.
 
2004-03-23 04:02:09 PM
I call shenanigans on the fool that posted that pic above...
To the poster: get a life, dirtbag...
 
2004-03-23 04:03:03 PM
Cyclone: http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20011111premiumshealth2p2.asp
 
2004-03-23 04:03:08 PM
[OBVIOUS]
 
2004-03-23 04:09:53 PM
and they magically disappeared...cool...on to medicare stuff

I think it's time to put these lame horses known as social security, medicare, and medicaid out of their collective misery. I'm tired of paying for services I don't use and will not be available to me later on anyhow. Time to shake these folks off the government teat.

/teat is a nice word, eh?
 
2004-03-23 04:10:11 PM
mrgumbopants

Your job (which is predicated on communal education, communal defense, communal tech infrastructure and on and on) is something you have *partly* by dint of your own skills and partly because we have set up society in such a way that those jobs and skills can exist.


No. Communal education? Public schooling did nothing for me. I taught myself (or my parents did) everything important, and the rest was taught me by private institutions which I personally paid for. Communal education my ass.

Communal defense? Sure, I'll pay taxes for that. But not social security which I'll never see, medicare which I'll never use, or welfare that I don't deserve. Not when the government wastes the vast majority of it lining their own pockets.

I'm not flippant about your money, but you got it at a job that exists partly because we were born into a place that is about more than 'get however much you, personally, can get'. So it's partly yours and partly ours, right?


No. It's wholly mine. Certainly, circumstance played some part in it -- but I did the work, and you can't prove that any one else earns it more. Now, since I do like things like courts and militaries, I'm willing to pay MY money for it. Never again insinuate that another man's hard work does not belong to him.

In my opinion, your self reliance is only possible because we have a society that takes care of the sick and keeps the wage differential fair to the point where poor people aren't constantly looting and stealing just to get by. Your self reliance relies on a lot of things other than yourself. It's not an easy thing for conservatives to admit to, but most of what we've accomplished are things we've accomplished together.

Yes, accomplished together in a free market system, which is predicated on self-reliance. And that which wasn't done that way is primarily a miserable failure, like medicare, medicaid, and SS. It is free market economics that ensure that the poor are not looting and stealing, not the government. In countries where the government controls things, we DO have looting and stealing, mainly because the gov set such a good example by looting and stealing first.

And we have a system that takes care of the sick, because they pay for it! You're trying to credit every organization and institution to the government. They are in charge of the courts and defense, for which I thank them. But the founding fathers never though they should be your health insurance provider or a welfare state.

Oh, and I'm not a conservative. :) I'm a classical liberal.
 
2004-03-23 04:12:18 PM
Rousseau and his social contract are to blame! Everybody, to the time machines!
 
2004-03-23 04:12:24 PM
Cyclone


Hannahman
You are simply wrong. The average doctor, even in states of "Malpractice Crisis", does not pay over $100,000 in Malpractice premiums. GP's pay less than $25k, and only in Philadelphia do Surgeons and OB/GYNs pay more than $100k. In Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, no one pays more than $100,000. And thats including the MCARE charge.


I personally know people who prove you wrong. If you don't think malpractice is a major part of a physician's salary, you're wrong.
 
2004-03-23 04:15:11 PM
Hannahman: your article reinforces my assertion that the average physician pays less than $100k. OB/GYN is really expensive, and a better measure there is Income/Malpractice Premiums, which in Philly is apparently quite low. But 40% of doctors in the US are GP or Primary care. If you assume that PA numbers are similar, that means that 40% of Physicians in Philly are paying less than $25k. the other 60% are not all paying over $100, but even if you assume they are it wouldn't average $100k.
 
2004-03-23 04:15:44 PM
Thta scum bag is back posting NSFW stuff under a different name in a different thread.
 
2004-03-23 04:17:13 PM
yup...i say we hunt aforementioned scumbag down and then flog him profusely
 
2004-03-23 04:17:18 PM
Hannahman, I'm not arguing with you any more. We're arguing about two different topics. I simply don't want a governmentally run triage system. That's it.

Cyclone. I didn't mean to be harsh, you may be correct that his numbers were incorrect (I don't know) but malpractice is a MASSIVE issue at hospitals (which usually buy it in bulk).
 
2004-03-23 04:18:38 PM
Caliban: I was talking about PA only. Like I said earlier, Malpractice Premiums (MP) are highly dependent upon state and speciality. Reinsurance isn't factored into that, neither is self-insurance because they are regulated differently. Also, they may be buying from an unlicensed insurer, whose premiums might also differ.
 
2004-03-23 04:21:00 PM
Caliban: Hospitals may also be self-insured, which is totally different. And the increase in hospital expenditures is nearly eclipsing Prescription Rx as the fastest growing(www.cms.hhs.gov), but this is due in no small part to technology and the cost of non-durable and durable medical products.
 
2004-03-23 04:21:55 PM
Pocket Ninja ...stereotype?
 
2004-03-23 04:23:11 PM
freedom's just another word for nothing else to lose
it's nothin, nothin hon if it ain't free
and Medicare is gonna break by 2000 and 19
but feelin good is good enough for me
's long as i don't catch some weirdo disease
 
2004-03-23 04:37:45 PM
caliban

i resent the doesn't that mean anything to you comment-there's no need to be rude. First of all, medicare, medicaid, and social security aren't wasting every cent they spend. Secondly, if the money spent on fighting terrorism and freeing the iraqi people isn't a waste, i don't know what is.

I KNOW, LET'S OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT FELLOW FARKERS

/sarcastic
 
2004-03-23 04:40:29 PM
Lowering tax rates for the rich does nothing. If people are rich enough to see a significant difference because of these tax cuts, they're rich enough to buy whatever they want ANYWAY. It's just extra cash in the bank for the rich.

How this relates to medicare, I have no idea. But I thought I'd throw it out there.
 
2004-03-23 04:41:13 PM
It's not prescription drugs. Prescription drugs account from between 4-8% of healthcare spending in the US, depending on what study you use.

Broktun | Selling drugs since 1992
 
2004-03-23 04:44:33 PM

a smart guy named Ponzi had this scheme...
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report