200 Economists sign letter urging repeal of ObamaCare

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    Last week, 200 economists signed a letter to the House and Senate Leadership urging a repeal of ObamaCare on the grounds that $500 billion in new taxes and increasing spending during a time when the Federal Government is already running a trillion dollar deficit will be detrimental to the economy.

    If only that were remotely likely...

     
  2. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
  3. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #3
    Oh I love it when politicians and economists take on health! They know so much more about it than public health officials. The increased taxes equate to about $1,500 per person in the US...obviously, this will be varied depending on circumstances, but how many people spend less than $1,500 on medical care in a year?...technically it might save some people a lil' money:confused:

    Over the last two years, I have spent over $50,000 on out of pocket expenses.
     
  4. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #4
    While I claim to not have much knowledge, I would argue that when dealing with legislation, politicians and economists have a much better grasp on the cost of the legislation in question.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    It would be illuminating to know under which stone all these 200 "economists" were hiding while the deficits and wars were being run up in the first place.
     
  6. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #6
    True.

    Makes you wonder if these economists supported the war effort as historically, going to war has boosted the American economy
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #7
    Yet none of them spoke out once they realized these two are doing nothing but adding to the deficit? Come on.

    Hacks.
     
  8. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #8
    What I find fascinating is how you two seem to think you have ANY idea as to the length of time these economists have been speaking out against the deficit, what their long-term positions are on war, social security, growth of government in general, etc.

    Where exactly are you getting your information that would suggest in any way whatsoever that these economists are hypocritical or 'hacks?' Seems like you don't have any facts to back up your assumptions... seems like an obvious Red Herring argument.
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    lets be fair. Politicians if they have any clue what the cost of legislation will be they sure as well do not bother to use any of it.

    The biggest problem I see with ObamaCare is it does nothing to address the underline problem with healthcare in the US. The underlining problem is the out of control run away rising cost. Until that fundamental issue is addressed nothing can be solved.
     
  10. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #10
    I know lol.

    For every economist with a viewpoint, there are others that have countering opinions. I am sure that is the case here as well.

    I wonder if the OP can dig up a similar list of the multitude of economists that disagree with the 200 he provided.

    I mean I am more interested in the real outcome of the effects of this legislation than any bias provided by any party whose goal is to divide the population on issues
     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #11
    I find any economist that seriously thinks austerity is the way to go in a recession/weak economy with no demand a hack.
     
  12. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #12
    I spend about 10k a year on HC for my family and if anything happens we don't pay over $4500 year in copays and procedures. Why even have insurance if you're going to pay that much out of pocket.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    I did not claim to have any "facts", as you are so keen to term opinions which tally with yours. I posed a question. Why would I have any idea what some obscure US economists think? I expect there are at least as many who think the exact opposite. You tell me, it's your bloody country, not mine.
     
  14. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #15
    That's not true. You said you wondered 'what stone' these economists were under while the deficits were being run up... a statement which assumes that they were under a figurative rock (were not engaged in the debate) when the deficit was being built up... and I'm asking how you know that and how you could jump to such an assumption? Perhaps you misspoke and were simply wondering if this was indeed the case - that they were unengaged - if so, just clarify. Clearly we know where NT1440 sits as he directly called them 'hacks.'
     
  15. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #16
    Some of them are affiliated with AEI, and AEI neocons were the creators of Bush's public policy. So they have credence.
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    I jumped nowhere. If any more than a handful of these experts were making anything like as much noise during the last administration, I would genuinely like to know. I did not hear it. Hence my comment.
     
  17. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #18
    Arthur Laffer? The great cocktail-napkin economist? The definition of FoS? There is your credibility hurdle right there. It may be insurmountable.
     
  18. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #19
    Well, as far as the legal costs...I know nothing. It will probably cost more than the investigation of Bill Clinton's BJ.

    With that said, I do know the cost of medical services, infrastructure design, maintenance, and coordination, and beyond all, evidence based medicine (which simplified are methods which have been tested to improve health).

    One example is that for preventing managing heart disease with daily low dose aspirin therapy and fish oil with omega 3s have as much or more benefit than most 'brand-name' medications, which costs literally as much as a few grand per month. Value wise, aspirin is golden and it can even prevent you from dying from both a stroke and heart attack. Some medications cost so much that one day's worth of the brand name medication is slightly more than one YEARS worth of LDAT. Furthermore, many medications can make huge impact on numbers, but actual real world outcomes are not as impressive...this is the same thing as how the Intel SSD is slower than other SSDs on paper, but in real-time use, the difference is nominal. From the public health perspective, when administering a management plan for coronary heart disease and stroke prevention and management, would you rather go with the aspirin/omega 3, or the brand name medications? This is what we do. We conduct blinded studies, research trials used around the entire world and their respective outcomes, review all existing literature, collaborate with government organizations in both the US and national public health sector and after such extensive research, then we can say this is or is not helpful at all and this is or is not likely to cause harm, and finally, if it has great or terrible value and should be used on the larger population. Evidence based, means tested, medicine saves both money and lives.

    This is what happens when politicians, businessmen, and 'economists' make health decisions...good ole' Dubya really saved us lot of money with this epically idiotic move
    Cliff notes: the Bush administration purchased hundreds of millions of dollars of Cipro, and antibiotic used to successfully treat anthrax. Cipro is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, which is the antibiotic classes with the most frequent and most severe adverse reactions on average (few hundred current lawsuits regarding permanent disability and death). It is a useful antibiotic, but it is NOT a first line treatment. That isn't where it gets bad...

    Doxycycline, one of the most well-tolerated antibiotics does virtually the same thing Cipro can do in regards to anthrax. It is the standard and first line treatment for anthrax (and a gazillion other things due to its ultra wide spectrum and activity on both gram neg + pos bacteria, protozoa, fungi). Its better tolerated properties make it ideal as many people in the armed forces take the antibiotics proactively if they are at risk for anthrax (and a few other diseases). Why the hell would you switch to a med which is tolerated not as well as the current protocol. Well maybe they got Cipro for a better price? WRONG

    A 'full course' of treatment with Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) is about $200 at the government's 'reduced' price...doxycycline is $10.

    Oh, and that anthrax scare around the time of 9/11...well, Cipro (the medicine used to TREAT anthrax) seems to have killed more people than the anthrax itself.

    This is what happens when those fools call the shots on health.
     
  19. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #20
    Well we do know you weren't here posting about them...seems likely either you have a motive or they do...or both.
     
  20. Hugh macrumors 6502a

    Hugh

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Erie, PA
    #21
    Just wanted to say not everyone can take aspirin, even in low doses. Aspirin isn't even option for me, for it causes bleeding. :(

    Hugh
     
  21. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #22
    The paper they signed says nothing about being against the plan...

    It speculates higher taxes and counts the trimming of unessecsary departments as "job loss" as opposed to pointing out the money saved from eliminating those positions?...
     
  22. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #23
    Indeed not everyone can take it, and so if a national plan advocated aspirin use, there would have to be an alternative plan for people who cannot use aspirin. The 'second line treatment' would ideally be as effective as the 'first line', but that is not always the case. It is also not always available, is often much more expensive, and it may have more side effects. In terms of prevention though, if you can fish oil, you will be taking a supplement that can benefit at least 50 different aspects, ranging in the category of cardiovascular health to skin, to mental health, to memory, to infectious disease resistance, to vision, and more. Obviously, if you live a healthy life, you will get more benefit as health is largely a compilation effect of how we choose to live, for better or worse.
     
  23. Hugh macrumors 6502a

    Hugh

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Erie, PA
    #24
    There are some side effects of taking fish oil. But this is something that I've thought about talking about, makings sure it would be alright with other meds.

    Hugh
     
  24. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #25
    Absolutely, and taking too much fish oil can actually increase your chances of a heart attack and contribute to bleeding disorders. Most side effects of fish oil however, seem to occur when someone is taking a substantially higher amount than the standard dosing. If you are taking other medications/supplements, I would talk to your pharmacist in addition to a primary care physician, as they know the most about potential drug interactions even interactions between supplements and food (ex: grapefruit can do some really, really bad things if you are on certain medicines, caffeine can lower the seizure threshold, and so forth).
     

Share This Page