Obama Mercy Hospital

[professorpinasheep]

So what this plan is intending on doing is taking a big chunk of this money going to the hospitals and putting it towards the health care program. The hospitals will not need the money if almost everyone in the US is covered. The fact that the insurance is more affordable will assure that more people have it, and the ones who can't afford it will get the free plan. This method will create lower bills to people and the hospitals will be getting paid by the insurance companies, and on top of it there may be less ER bills anyway because of the fact that more people covered will create more of an awareness of preventive care.

You asked where the money comes from. It is coming from money that is already being spent on hospitals, but instead of making it so that it is being used after damage is done it can be used more efficiently and also be there to help people because it can be used for preventive care instead of just being used for bills that are driving hospitals into the ground.

I think it's safe to say we're not going to agree on this issue, so this'll be my last response.

I can't buy the argument that "hospitals won't need the money" if almost everyone is covered. They'll still need the money. They'll just have to try to collect it from another entity that's (in)famous for red tape. Hospitals and doctors need money to cover ridiculous malpractice insurance and the rising cost of everything else, from food to medication. That won't change.

I have a problem with the fact that it's going to increase the taxes I pay. Before you say it won't, remember that you said yourself that more people will be covered. That means more money will be required, and money doesn't grow on trees. Yes, it'll lower the bill that the patient sees.. but it will raise the payment you see coming out of your paycheck.

Another problem I have is with the "preventative care" argument. It's often not cost-effective, and if the government wants to use such a huge chunk of taxpayer money, it damn well better be cost-effective.http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/17/pre...index.html is one article that can be cited. There's a few more from the AP that I've read as well.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But hey, I hope it goes as well as you say it will.. because the alternative if they follow through (remember, the Dems are having a hard time getting enough "for sure" votes even though they control Congress with a filibuster-proof majority) and fail won't be pleasant.