A Preview Of Government Run Health Care

[red states rule]

Only 64 cents of every D.C. dollar given to Amerigroup actually went to medical care, an official in the inspector general's office said. The rate typically is more than 80 cents per dollar for other managed care organizations in Maryland and Virginia, the report said.


$.64 on the dollar, enough said

 

[Bern80]

Back to the subject:

It's not so much that government will turn healthcare from good to bad. the fact is they've already done that. Government is already part of the reason insurance premiums are so high. Being one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country comes at a price, which is of course passed on to the consumer.

 

[Alpha1]

RSR should apologize to Diuretic....the real asshole revealed herself in later posts....

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I can give you two reasons not to have government run our health care

VA and Walter Reed fiasco

 

[uscitizen]

As ALWAYS, if the government runs it it is going to be a financial disaster AND destroy the quality of care.

and Shattered has to destroy another thread

right look at the VA hospital scandal and the pill bill.

 

[red states rule]

right look at the VA hospital scandal and the pill bill.

and yet the Dem candidates want the government to take over the health care industry

 

[Diuretic]

Is there a Secretary for Veterans Affairs in the Bush Administration? Or is Barney running it?

 

[Vintij]

and yet the Dem candidates want the government to take over the health care industry

As oppose to greedy insurance companies? Everyone deserves to be covered, not just you RSR. Your not special.

 

[red states rule]

As oppose to greedy insurance companies? Everyone deserves to be covered, not just you RSR. Your not special.

Why should I have to pay for it? No one "deserves" to be covered. They have to pay for it

The insurance are not greedy - they are in business to make a profit - not provide handouts

 

[Vintij]

Why should I have to pay for it? No one "deserves" to be covered. They have to pay for it

The insurance are not greedy - they are in business to make a profit - not provide handouts

And thats what we are trying to change. Nearly Every single candidate runs on mandating healthcare to cover everyone, eventually its gonna happen weather you want to pay for it or not.

 

[Truthmatters]

No 0ne is advocating government RUN health care!

 

[Bern80]

And thats what we are trying to change. Nearly Every single candidate runs on mandating healthcare to cover everyone, eventually its gonna happen weather you want to pay for it or not.

As i said earlier vintij one of the reasons premiums are so high in the first place is because insurance companies are up to their eye balls in government red tape as it is. If government would actually let them run as a business healthcare would be far less expensive. Yet you want to add to the problem by getting the government even more involved.

 

[red states rule]

As i said earlier vintij one of the reasons premiums are so high in the first place is because insurance companies are up to their eye balls in government red tape as it is. If government would actually let them run as a business healthcare would be far less expensive. Yet you want to add to the problem by getting the government even more involved.

This is what the Dems want for all of us. The cost is incredible and not worth what it accomplishes


Cheese Headcases
Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a Petri dish for government-run health care.

This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined.

This employment tax is on top of the $1 billion grab bag of other levies that Democratic Governor Jim Doyle proposed and the tax-happy Senate has also approved, including a $1.25 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, a 10% hike in the corporate tax, and new fees on cars, trucks, hospitals, real estate transactions, oil companies and dry cleaners. In all, the tax burden in the Badger State could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden. "At least federal taxes pay for an Army and Navy," quips R.J. Pirlot of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby.

As if that's not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 1.5 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. This could bring the payroll tax to 16%. One reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America. The legislation doesn't require that you have a job in Wisconsin to qualify, merely that you live in the state for at least 12 months. Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010374

 

[Truthmatters]

you people are dumber than a box of snails

 

[Bern80]

you people are dumber than a box of snails

So the reason why insureance premiums are so expensive is not because of government regulations?

 

[red states rule]

you people are dumber than a box of snails

The numbers from WI are shocking and they tell us what the cost really is

 

[Bern80]

So the reason why insureance premiums are so expensive is not because of government regulations?

This silence is deafening. I'm gonna need another hand to count the times a lib has simply dropped from a thread when the validity of what they say is called into question.

 

[Vintij]

This silence is deafening. I'm gonna need another hand to count the times a lib has simply dropped from a thread when the validity of what they say is called into question.

I suspect truthmatters did not return because of the fact that he cant debate with a someone who thinks that the only reason insurance companys rates are high is because of government regulation. There are a variety of reasons that do not even relate to the government, but it seems frustrating to convey that message to ignorance.

 

[Diuretic]

Why should I have to pay for it? No one "deserves" to be covered. They have to pay for it

The insurance are not greedy - they are in business to make a profit - not provide handouts

Apologies to all - I missed much of the latter part of the thread. This is an interesting point. Insurance companies must make a profit or they go under and people lose their jobs, shareholders lose money etc. So, given that, should a primary health care system (I've indicated elsewhere that I'm fine with people being able to buy additional health care above the primary level, I do so myself) be run on a for profit basis? I know I'm not that well informed about how health systems run but at the level of primary care, not critical care, but the basic needs to ensure people receive the car that keeps them well (differentiating from, say, cosmetic dentistry) should it be run on a for profit basis? What advantage lies in this?

I ask because it seems to me that the private insurance industry (not just in health) works like a bookie. It takes your money and it works out the odds. Ever seen an actuary at work? They work on risk assessment. That's why the older you get the harder it is to get life insurance or the more expensive it is. An insurance company isn't going to expose itself to too much risk. It will either avoid it or lay it off (using re companies).

So, why have insurance companies, who operate on a for profit basis, in primary health care?

 

[Diuretic]

Why should I have to pay for it? No one "deserves" to be covered. They have to pay for it

The insurance are not greedy - they are in business to make a profit - not provide handouts

You know that's really a statement of values, which is fair enough, but my value system says that every person in my society, simply because they are members of my society, should be entitled to free, primary health care. We know we're all going to die but we would like to put it off as long as possible. That's what primary health care is about. So, why shouldn't everyone, rich, poor or in the middle, be entitled to primary health care where the cost is shared by all?