MASS DEMOCRAT State Treasurer: "Dem healthcare will bankrupt America"

I am starting to think that the Dems only really want to pass this because either they enjoy pissing off teabaggers or they "feel" that with previous Repub war spending that it's "their turn".
We cannot afford this bill, and even if we could it has increased costs dramatically, created a shortage of doctors so that your "insurance" is in name only and increased waiting times, while making many of us pay more in taxes for the uninsured.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.html
 
NigelTufnel said:
What points are there to refute? As was pointed out in the original "article" the Massachusetts health reform amounts to 1% of the state budget.

The only fact that Cahill asserts is that Massachusetts is propped up by the federal government, yet he fails to cite what federal money he is talking about or how Massachusetts is getting some sort of benefit that every other state does not get. The fact of the matter is that Massachusetts does not get special treatment and its reform is working quite nicely.

Cahill is just plain wrong. Just because he says something does not make it true.
Click to expand...

he is absolutely right and you saying something does not make it true. medicare is heavy in the red, a major drain on our fiscal status. that is a fact. it is not a leap of logic to see that a new bureaucracy will also go the way of medicare as it will be similar in nature.

they need to go back to the drawing board. it is the height of arrogance and stupidity to not do so. the bill won't even take effect for YEARS, so if it takes one more year to get it right, then that is what must be done, not this bullshit wool over the eyes that you and your fellow liberals are trying to ram down our throats.
 
Yurt said:
he is absolutely right and you saying something does not make it true. medicare is heavy in the red, a major drain on our fiscal status. that is a fact. it is not a leap of logic to see that a new bureaucracy will also go the way of medicare as it will be similar in nature.

they need to go back to the drawing board. it is the height of arrogance and stupidity to not do so. the bill won't even take effect for YEARS, so if it takes one more year to get it right, then that is what must be done, not this bullshit wool over the eyes that you and your fellow liberals are trying to ram down our throats.
Click to expand...


What the fuck does any of that have to do with Cahill's assertions regarding Massachusetts? Nothing. Nothing at all.

And I'm not going to bother debating the silly "bankrupt" argument. The bill reduces the deficit, it doesn't add to it.
 
Bittermark said:
And this legislation simultaneously increases spending, reduces the deficit, and raises taxes.
Click to expand...

Pretending it reduces the deficit is laughable. The ONLY way it could reduce the deficit is if future Congresses cut spending. That is the ONLY way.

this bill does nothing to address the rising costs of health care. It does nothing to reduce the deficit (at least in the eyes of any sane voter). It does nothing to break down the state barriers. All it does is add more bureaucracy to an already overly burdened system of red tape.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Even Dem leftwingers from Mass realize the obvious, we cannot even afford the healthcare we have now with over $800 billion per year going to support Medicaid and Medicare for just 100 million Americans, how on earth can we afford government healthcare for the rest?
What Obama and Dems are trying to give us, Mass already has and it is failing them BADLY.

"“I was afraid of what we had already been getting in Massachusetts, and at that point in 2008, I was aware that it wasn’t working,” he said. Separately yesterday, Cahill accused Obama of “propping up” the Bay State’s health plan with federal aid in order to help push the Democrats’ plan through Congress.

“The real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that it’s being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.”

Gov. Deval Patrick argues the state’s universal health care program has added 1 percent to the budget, but Cahill said the real impact is buffered by federal dollars.

Meanwhile, Republican Charles Baker’s campaign said Patrick “has consistently failed to address rising health-care costs in Massachusetts.” Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim CEO, advocated for years for greater transparency on the part of medical service providers.

Cahill called on congressional Democrats yesterday to go “back to the drawing board,” saying he fears they will “bankrupt” the country."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1240176
Click to expand...

Belgium has a world-class healthcare system. You are wealthier than Belgium. You can afford to provide universal healthcare.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Belgium has a world-class healthcare system. You are wealthier than Belgium. You can afford to provide universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

Belgium is also about the size of MA, with a denser population.

The denser the population the greater the efficiency of scale. Belgium is one of the denser populations in Europe... and far and away denser than the US.

Trying to compare the two is ridiculous.
 
Superfreak said:
Belgium is also about the size of MA, with a denser population.

The denser the population the greater the efficiency of scale. Belgium is one of the denser populations in Europe... and far and away denser than the US.

Trying to compare the two is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

De-centralise universal healthcare then. Bring the principles of universal healthcare but manage it at a local level. Is distance really such a difficult issue to overcome? Don't you have an existing hospital / GP system?

Really, I thought America was the land of the brave? Why so timid over achieving something as easily achievable as healthcare?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Belgium has a world-class healthcare system. You are wealthier than Belgium. You can afford to provide universal healthcare.
Click to expand...
It's not even a question of wealth anyways. You cannot decide HOW people can think when presented with higher taxes.
Countries that are rich in natural resources, businesses cannot just pack up and leave when an unfavorable business environment comes into being. Likewise with countries that speak less English, it is costly and harder for rich management to run things in other countries where people speak/write other languages.
America is not like that and would lose wealth very easily, it already has with the CURRENT business conditions.
 
Superfreak said:
Pretending it reduces the deficit is laughable. The ONLY way it could reduce the deficit is if future Congresses cut spending. That is the ONLY way.

this bill does nothing to address the rising costs of health care. It does nothing to reduce the deficit (at least in the eyes of any sane voter). It does nothing to break down the state barriers. All it does is add more bureaucracy to an already overly burdened system of red tape.
Click to expand...

It's not really difficult to open an office in another state. The real reason people want to eliminate state barriers is to incite a race to the bottom. That would, by far, be the most resounding effect - almost complete deregulation.
 
Bittermark said:
It's not really difficult to open an office in another state. The real reason people want to eliminate state barriers is to incite a race to the bottom. That would, by far, be the most resounding effect - almost complete deregulation.
Click to expand...
You don't even know what you are talking about.
The eliminating state barriers is for increasing competition with more choice in healthcare providers, I don't know many that oppose that. THAT would be real reform.
Your race to the bottom bullshit is your loony disproven theory that applies to businesses and job creation.
 
AnyOldIron said:
De-centralise universal healthcare then. Bring the principles of universal healthcare but manage it at a local level. Is distance really such a difficult issue to overcome? Don't you have an existing hospital / GP system?

Really, I thought America was the land of the brave? Why so timid over achieving something as easily achievable as healthcare?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with being brave or not.

Answer this if you would:

Which is going to have greater efficiencies of scale....

1) A population of 10 million people located within one city

2) A population of 10 million people spread out over 50 cities

As I stated, there is efficiencies of scale that you do not factor in. Nor do most that harp on 'well country x does it, so why can't we'

We CAN create health reforms that are tailored to the make up of our country. No question. That said, what works for NY city is not likely to work for the state of Montana (or Colorado for that matter). Trying to force a cookie cutter plan on every state is a dumb idea. Trying to force a set of requirements that every policy must cover is a dumb idea. Trying to pretend that the 'reform' is being paid for when it is not, is a dumb idea.
 
Bittermark said:
It's not really difficult to open an office in another state. The real reason people want to eliminate state barriers is to incite a race to the bottom. That would, by far, be the most resounding effect - almost complete deregulation.
Click to expand...

This is simply fear mongering by the left.

It is one of Dung's favorite bullshit comments. Tell us... what exactly would deteriorate the contracts? The INCREASED competition for the business? The standardized regulations/forms?

Take a look at insurance products that are more investment related (ie... life insurance/annuities etc... )... those contracts are available across state lines and the competition to provide the 'best' contract is fierce. The quality of the contracts has vastly improved over the past decade alone.
 
Bittermark said:
It's not really difficult to open an office in another state. The real reason people want to eliminate state barriers is to incite a race to the bottom. That would, by far, be the most resounding effect - almost complete deregulation.
Click to expand...

Also... while it is not difficult to OPEN an office, when every state has its own set of regs, its own requirements for forms etc... it is cost prohibitive to be in all 50 states.
 
We CAN create health reforms that are tailored to the make up of our country. No question. That said, what works for NY city is not likely to work for the state of Montana (or Colorado for that matter). Trying to force a cookie cutter plan on every state is a dumb idea. Trying to force a set of requirements that every policy must cover is a dumb idea. Trying to pretend that the 'reform' is being paid for when it is not, is a dumb idea.

You simply organise your healthcare system to deal with your specific requirements, provided that healthcare is universal to all citizens.

As long as you have a general ethos, the rest is simply a matter of organisation and logistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top