I would have thought it would be easy for you to to the math and take 1000, and times it by three if you are single or by 10 if you have a family, but apparently, doing math for yourself is not a possiblity, maybe the government should do it for you, I also erred, on the side of caution when doing those numbers as i took 5% as the average profit when the real average is between 2 and 3. From Todays wallstreet journal dumb ass. 'Every argument has been made. Everything that there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it," President Obama declared yesterday as he urged Democrats to steamroll his plan through Congress. What hasn't been heard, however, is even a shred of White House honesty about the true costs of ObamaCare, or its fiscal consequences. Nearby, we reprint Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's remarks at the health summit last week, which methodically dismantle the falsehoodsâthere is no other way of putting itâthat Mr. Obama has used to sell "reform" and repeated again yesterday. No one in the political class has even tried to refute Mr. Ryan's arguments, though he made them directly to the President and his allies, no doubt because they are irrefutable. If Democrats are willing to ignore overwhelming public opposition to ObamaCare and pass it anyway, then what's a trifling dispute over a couple of trillion dollars? At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millionsâfamilies, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one. Mr. Obama's fiscal assertions are possible only because of the fraudulent accounting and budget gimmicks that Democrats spent months calibrating. Readers can find the gory details in Mr. Ryan's pre-emptive rebuttal nearby, though one of the most egregious deceptions is that the bill counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending. The real cost over a decade is about $2.3 trillion on paper, Mr. Ryan estimates, and even that is a lowball estimate considering how many people will flood to "free" health care and how many businesses will be induced to drop coverage. Mr. Obama claimed yesterday that the plan will cost "about $100 billion per year," but in fact the costs ramp up each year the program exists. The far more likely deficits are $460 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion over the next 10. What Mr. Ryan calls "probably the most cynical gimmick" deserves special attention, which is known in Washington as the "doc fix." Next month Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 22% and deeper thereafter, though Congress is sure to postpone the reductions as it always does. Failing to account for this inevitability takes nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the ObamaCare books and by itself wipes out the "savings" that the White House continues to take credit for. Some in the liberal cheering section now claim that this Medicare ruse isn't Mr. Obama's problem because it was first promised by Republicans and Bill Clinton in 1997. But then why did Democrats include the "doc fix" in all early versions of the bill to buy the support of the American Medical Association, only to dump this pricey item later when hiding it would make it easier to fake-reduce the deficit? The President was (miraculously) struck dumb by Mr. Ryan's critique, and in his response drifted off into an irrelevant tangent about Medicare Advantage, while California Democrat Xavier Becerra claimed "you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office." But Mr. Ryan was careful to note that he didn't doubt the professionalism of CBO, only the truthfulness of the Democratic gimmicks that the budget gnomes are asked to score. Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the "nonpartisan, independent" authority of CBO, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end. The President also claimed the reason his plan is in trouble, and the reason Democrats must abuse the Senate's rules to ram this plan into law, is that "many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies." So most of Mr. Obama's first year in office has been paralyzed over nothing more than minor regulatory hair-splitting. This is so preposterous that the President can't possibly believe it. Congress's spring break begins on March 29, and Democratic leaders plan on jamming this monster through Congress before then. Americans have to hope that enough rank-and-file Democrats aren't as deaf to fiscal honesty as this President.
So far the overwhelming majority (81%) know the dems are lying through their teeth to jam this down our throats. I dont think i have ever seen a poll this lopsided on elitetrader.
Yes, it would be easy for me to do the math, wrong. You're making two errors: 1) Getting the real profit margin incorrect, and 2) not accounting for cost reductions outside of solely profit margin. Taking Wellpoint as one, simple, example: "investigators had received internal company documents showing that in 2008, 39 company executives received salaries of $1 million or more. And in 2007 and 2008, it spent $27 million for 103 executive retreats." Your editorials with uncited numbers notwithstanding.
Feel free to tell me where exactly in the current bill it puts a limit on the number of vacations execs can go on, as well as their salaries.
Red herring. The bill does not, however that doesn't allow you to escape from the gaping maw of the point. The point being that cost efficiencies are gained through a wide variety of approaches and using only one measure (and with incomplete numbers at that) for "profit" and claiming that cost efficiencies are entirely and solely just from "profit" which you disingenuously claim is 2%. Forgive us, but when you barfed out that "2%" number, as if this was reflective of what they're actually putting away in salaries and benefits and profit, most of us on this side of the desks started laughing at you. Look at the graph above, the one which shows that cost growth is lower in the so-called "socialist" countries, and that the costs themselves are lower, and please explain that fact, given your current delusions of 2% overhead.
Sorry fact of the matter is the bill does absolutely nothing to bring down costs of salaries, thus there is only about 3% to work with as these companies are not going to continually operate at a loss..... Actually nevermind this is America, and the Obama economy, im sure that the companies will just start operating at a loss and living on the government tit like everyone else. You are a fucking idiot, and you are proving my point, i said there was only a 3% margin with insurers, not that there wasnt more than 3% margin in healthcare in general, i said that Obama is going after the wrong fucking people. How many times a day do you say red herring? Do you even know what it means?
bigdave, Dude leave the troll (Hello) to himself. He registered 40 days ago and has 5 post per day virtually all in the P&R forum. He's simply just another recycled alias whose last one was shamed into leaving. And now he's back. Trying to rationally engage him is a waste of effort.
Coming from a dipshit commy like you dr. vodka i will take that as a compliment thx. Please feel free btw to tell me which forum 95% of your posts fall into. Idiot.
Why is this hard? 1) there is NO denying ANYONE a new policy for any condition. 2) insurance is sold across state lines 3) trial lawyers are not let anywhere near malpractice cases, under penalty of losing their citizenship and being dropped off at Guantamo Bay with 2 days supply of food and water. 4) Old people and preemies die. It is life. Stop spending 30-40% of our dollars trying to keep people alive an extra few months. 5) 750,000 foreign doctors are screened and allowed to practice medicine in the USA. In return, they offer medical care for an annual $75,000 salary. They provide basic insurance to anyone who walks in the door at a low price. Premium medical care costs a lot more. 6) Anyone getting medical services pays 1/3 the bill. Tax deductions for medical care are eliminated. Well, that is a major start. Slash the costs and you will have a lot fewer uninsured people. And you don't have to spend a trillion to do it.
Ah, I see you wish to run away screaming from your previous point that workers would only save "$4" on the "$1000" that they pay for health insurance per year. Changing the topic to the bill itself is an excellent choice for you at this point. The bill has a variety of methods in it to reduce costs -- whether a person is for it or against it clearly some of the ideas have validity. Streamlining paperwork is one approach that's in the bill, rewards for doctors for quality of service measures being achieved, rather than quantity of service, coordinating care for those with chronic conditions to reduce multiple visits and their costs, cost reduction pilot programs to test new ideas, and so on. You're very angry and outraged. A red herring is an intentional distraction from the topic at hand, such as the topic that insurers really only make 2% profit (as if that's accurate and not reflective of hiding profit gains and insulating them for tax purposes, and as if that's somehow a measure of overhead (!)) If you wish to use red herrings, then I will rely on mockery. I'll just post "2%" after each one of your posts so that people can laugh at you for being so gullible and/or duplicitous.