![]() |
Quote:
The percentage of Americans w/o health insurance has been on a steady decline for at least 10 years and the cost to those covered by employer-based plans has been rising disproportionately at a higher rate than wages for the last 10 years. Ignoring that fact as it was for those 8 years between 2000- 2008 was not a solution. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The steadily rising cost of health care is not a partisan issue....it is fact, without regard to the party in power. When Reagan took office in 1980, the per capita expenditures on health care were under $1,000....by the time Clinton took office in 1992, that cost rose to about $2.500...in 2000, it was about $4000 and now it is over $7,000. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...ads/tables.pdf (see table 6) But if you want to make it a partisan issue, by blaming Clinton, I would suggest the partisanship comes about with the proposed solutions, if any....Reagan and GHW Bush did nothing to even attempt to address the problem. Clinton tried and failed, with the exception of SCHIP. GW Bush did nothing. Obama is taking it head on. |
Quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tK7...age&q=&f=false |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://hadm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/Econ/.../nhe_gdp05.gifThe growth was relatively flat during the Clinton years. The per capita data shows much the same trends. |
As I stated. It was the policy developed in the later half of the Clinton Administration which set the stage for the exponential growth in the following years. Your graph shows that. The growth took off before Bush was elected.
This was a pretty good summary. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/167/2/163.pdf http://whatifpost.com/heath-care-his...beginning-1929 HMO's leave Medicare, costs soar for the uninsured: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Medica.....-a0102286841 |
Quote:
Even if that is the case, and the data suggests otherwise, Bush did nothing to address the problem for eight years and it only got worse. |
NationalHealthExpenditures perCapita andTheirShareofGross DomesticProduct,1960-2005Source
Graph, Page 6 CumulativeChangeinSingleandFamilyHealthInsurancePremiumsandFederalPovertyThreshold,1996-2004 Graph, Page 15; starting point zero 1996. http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670.pdf |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
.
|
:lol:
|
Can't blame Bush for the health care dilemma. This has been growing all along - as far back as I can remember. Heck, in the 70's ther was talk about health care problems and people not bing covered. I wasn't concerned because I was in the military and my family was covered.
I remember the divorcee across the lawn in another apartment. Single mom raising two children and no health care. Not an uncommon situation even back then. Honestly, the only thing that has changed it the cost of everything associated with health care. It's an ugly situation. Americans want Government to solve all our problems. Well, that's what were getting - then we complain when Government get too big - sound like a vicious cycle of circle jerks. Obama is doing what the Democrates have wanted all along - big Government in a socialistic atmosphere under a democratic label. He just happens to be the first democratic presidential candidate who hasn't had a stream of mud clinging to his past. If this thing doesn't pass, I'll be surprised. One thing that has puzzled me and I hoped would be answered during the address President Obama made to Congress a couple of weeks ago. I waited for the part on "How would this be paid for?" to come up. It finally did... as a matter of fact... Obama had transitioned with that very question... "How is this going to be paid for?" He said it... I heard it... He never answered it. I understand England has 12% coming out of their citizens paychecks every payday to pay for their health care (I may be wrong). If that happens in this country... it will undoubtedly help many but, it will also bankrupt many. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.