medicare is not as efficient as you seem to think it is.....to many seniors and Doctors it is a PAIN IN THE ASS.....
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can Public Option Work?
- Thread starter SmellyLemmings
- Start date
medicare is not as efficient as you seem to think it is.....to many seniors and Doctors it is a PAIN IN THE ASS.....Yes, it will work as Medicare for everyone or Medicare E. Anyone could subscribe to Medicare E, which has been very efficient at serving seniors.
Even cons and blue dogs would have trouble voting against Medicare.
And with the scheduled cuts in payment, the ones the administration is bargaining to put off in return for support from the AMA, doctors will get so little that many of them are going to quit practicing altogether.
More effective shouldn't necessarily mean more expensive. That person with Hodgkins disease in 1975 was still treated. It just didn't work. Look at it this way; would you be willing to spend 100% of GDP on healthcare if it insured that no one ever died and we lived forever?
Your response is bizarre.
How do you think treatments become more effective? THe tooth fairy? No, these come about through research and development, which is expensive. They add tremendously to the economic utility of the country, allowing people to have productive lives who would have been burdens, at best, on everyone else. What is it worth to have Steve Jobs still working at Apple?
Your last question is just a puzzler.
How is my last question a puzzler? It is an impossiblity of course. We can't spend 100% of GDP on healthcare, because then there would be nothing left of our economy. No one would have money for food yet alone shelter. The question is, how much of our economy can we afford to devote to healthcare if we want a thriving economy and a decent standard of living for as many as possible?
I dont think there is a number there. It's like saying, how much of our economy can we spend on food, or anything else? It is what it is. It costs what it costs.
As I said, chief dim bulb of the board. SS and Medicare are bankrupt. PO is bankrupt. Police and firemen are local, not federal. Military is hardly the model of efficiency and survive only by having basically unlimited funds.
Deregulation of wall st (whatever that means) has resulted in mega increases in net worth in this country over the last 10 years.
WHo lives in a fantasy world again??
You do Rabbi. There is a lot that government does that works well in spite of congress and their meddling with things for personal gain.
Safe food? Thank government!
Do you ever use Roads, Bridges, Airports, etc? Thank government!
Think about it!
It isnt that they dont get things done. It is that they get things done in the most expensive least efficient way possible. And in doing so they destroy private enterprise, enslave the population, and reduce us to serfs. The health care mess will be more of the same, a lot more. And it is completely unnecessary.
What a crock of shit.
Providing government insurance for the old and the sick is not going to "enslave" anyone.
Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.
And many of them have a higher life expectancy than we do.
You do Rabbi. There is a lot that government does that works well in spite of congress and their meddling with things for personal gain.
Safe food? Thank government!
Do you ever use Roads, Bridges, Airports, etc? Thank government!
Think about it!
It isnt that they dont get things done. It is that they get things done in the most expensive least efficient way possible. And in doing so they destroy private enterprise, enslave the population, and reduce us to serfs. The health care mess will be more of the same, a lot more. And it is completely unnecessary.
What a crock of shit.
Providing government insurance for the old and the sick is not going to "enslave" anyone.
Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.
And many of them have a higher life expectancy than we do.
hey Chris....if thing passes and it turns into a absolute disaster....will we see Chris say he was wrong or will Chris just make sure he never posts on threads concerning this topic?....
thats already been debunked about 10x here in different threads....
first, the government is not taking over health care and running it in these bills, they are regulating it...and it is within their powers to regulate imo.
Is Social Security, and Medicare, and medicaid unconstitutional? I haven't had a chance to go back in the thread yet to see if anyone has answered that question, so I apologize if you answered already Harry....
Care
Care....i havent answered that Question....but the other day on c-span....a Dem Representative was saying "Govt.Run Health Care"....those were his words.....i also recall Pelosi saying those same words......so is Govt Run Health Care now just getting to mean the same as Govt Regulated Health Care to many people?.....these two terms are getting bandied about.....apparently....
Well, I am getting confused myself on all of this...I know I differ with you all, but I think the Public Insurance option within each state's Insurance exchange is necessary for competition...I like the House 3200 plan for the Public Insurance Option...
Which gives NO PREFERENCE of any sort towards the public option...where they have to follow all rules that the private sector has to follow in the bill,
and WHERE the Public option can not get tax payer's funds to help support it, WHERE it has to be FULLY PAID FOR THROUGH INSURANCE PREMIUMS of the policy holders and ONLY the policy holders.
where there is no mandate that if one loses their job that they have to go on to this option...it is SIMPLY AN OPTION that anyone buying insurance on the exchange, can CHOOSE to buy.
HOWEVER, I heard someone on c-span talking about what Baucus says the public option should be and he mentioned Medicare and taxes and all kinds of shit and different things the public option could mean...MANY OF WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH....
So, I am at the state of total confusion on it now....
Care
Harry, if we could lock out Libs every time they were proved to be wrong we'd have gulags of these suckers in Kansas somewhere.
The Libs have been wrong about every issue from Communism in the 1930s to Great Society programs in the 1960s to Soviet intentions in the 1980s up to the present day. A more failed record it would be hard to produce. And yet they show no shame, no remorse, and certainly no admission of wrong. Instead they blame someone else.
The Libs have been wrong about every issue from Communism in the 1930s to Great Society programs in the 1960s to Soviet intentions in the 1980s up to the present day. A more failed record it would be hard to produce. And yet they show no shame, no remorse, and certainly no admission of wrong. Instead they blame someone else.
first, the government is not taking over health care and running it in these bills, they are regulating it...and it is within their powers to regulate imo.
Is Social Security, and Medicare, and medicaid unconstitutional? I haven't had a chance to go back in the thread yet to see if anyone has answered that question, so I apologize if you answered already Harry....
Care
Care....i havent answered that Question....but the other day on c-span....a Dem Representative was saying "Govt.Run Health Care"....those were his words.....i also recall Pelosi saying those same words......so is Govt Run Health Care now just getting to mean the same as Govt Regulated Health Care to many people?.....these two terms are getting bandied about.....apparently....
Well, I am getting confused myself on all of this...I know I differ with you all, but I think the Public Insurance option within each state's Insurance exchange is necessary for competition...I like the House 3200 plan for the Public Insurance Option...
Which gives NO PREFERENCE of any sort towards the public option...where they have to follow all rules that the private sector has to follow in the bill,
and WHERE the Public option can not get tax payer's funds to help support it, WHERE it has to be FULLY PAID FOR THROUGH INSURANCE PREMIUMS of the policy holders and ONLY the policy holders.
where there is no mandate that if one loses their job that they have to go on to this option...it is SIMPLY AN OPTION that anyone buying insurance on the exchange, can CHOOSE to buy.
HOWEVER, I heard someone on c-span talking about what Baucus says the public option should be and he mentioned Medicare and taxes and all kinds of shit and different things the public option could mean...MANY OF WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH....
So, I am at the state of total confusion on it now....
Care
How is a public option within a state going to produce competition with private providers? What advantages will a public corporation have that existing companies dont that they can offer lower rates and/or better coverage?
Care....i havent answered that Question....but the other day on c-span....a Dem Representative was saying "Govt.Run Health Care"....those were his words.....i also recall Pelosi saying those same words......so is Govt Run Health Care now just getting to mean the same as Govt Regulated Health Care to many people?.....these two terms are getting bandied about.....apparently....
Well, I am getting confused myself on all of this...I know I differ with you all, but I think the Public Insurance option within each state's Insurance exchange is necessary for competition...I like the House 3200 plan for the Public Insurance Option...
Which gives NO PREFERENCE of any sort towards the public option...where they have to follow all rules that the private sector has to follow in the bill,
and WHERE the Public option can not get tax payer's funds to help support it, WHERE it has to be FULLY PAID FOR THROUGH INSURANCE PREMIUMS of the policy holders and ONLY the policy holders.
where there is no mandate that if one loses their job that they have to go on to this option...it is SIMPLY AN OPTION that anyone buying insurance on the exchange, can CHOOSE to buy.
HOWEVER, I heard someone on c-span talking about what Baucus says the public option should be and he mentioned Medicare and taxes and all kinds of shit and different things the public option could mean...MANY OF WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH....
So, I am at the state of total confusion on it now....
Care
How is a public option within a state going to produce competition with private providers? What advantages will a public corporation have that existing companies dont that they can offer lower rates and/or better coverage?
it would operate as a nonprofit coop....where plan holders pay for the company expenses.....if they do make a profit this profit has to go in to better benefits for the plan's policy holders, or a reduction in price for their policies.
the ceo's of each plan will get their millions, but with the public insurance plan i envision the ceo salaries not being as lucrative, like NO $200 MILLION A YEAR in salary for one person, but maybe $2 million or $5 million a year salary....
how it will be competition is by being efficient....if they can not operate on a lower overhead than the private insurance companies, then they will get no new customers because they will be offering insurance plans at about the same price as the private plans....but if they do find huge savings in overhead costs or inefficiencies and lower their prices substantially, THEN the private companies, in order to keep their market share of the business, will FIND the areas of their businesses that they can be more efficient in, so to compete...
they will NOT just throw in their hands and give up.....they will find a way to compete through dotting i's and crossing t's....this is why competition in capitalism is so critical....to keep prices reasonable and affordable through being more efficient, more productive with the dollars in hand to spend....
this is why monopolies are against the law....and for no other reason.
Let's start with profit margins at insurance companies are like 4% and under. So any "non profit" company has a 4% advantage.
Unfortunately the tendency of non profits is not to work efficiently since there is no incentive to. So that 4% is likely to get wasted in administrative expenses from the get go.
Further, if you cap executive salaries like that you will end up with people who can't cut it at the private insurers. Those executives typically make that much because they earn it. Obviously some of them are losers and they tend to get fired. But for the most part the compensation is the function of the market. If you pay peanuts, you hire monkeys, is the rule.
Finally there are already non profit co-ops out there operating. Experience is that their premiums are no lower than competing private corporations, probably for all the reasons I've mentioned.
So, no it is not a cure all.
The only way it will "work" will be to take subsidies from taxpayers. This will allow them to undercut private insurers, taking business away. Of course they lose on every policy they write, requiring more and more subsidy. Eventually we end up with "single payer" anyway. And I suspect this was the game plan all along.
Unfortunately the tendency of non profits is not to work efficiently since there is no incentive to. So that 4% is likely to get wasted in administrative expenses from the get go.
Further, if you cap executive salaries like that you will end up with people who can't cut it at the private insurers. Those executives typically make that much because they earn it. Obviously some of them are losers and they tend to get fired. But for the most part the compensation is the function of the market. If you pay peanuts, you hire monkeys, is the rule.
Finally there are already non profit co-ops out there operating. Experience is that their premiums are no lower than competing private corporations, probably for all the reasons I've mentioned.
So, no it is not a cure all.
The only way it will "work" will be to take subsidies from taxpayers. This will allow them to undercut private insurers, taking business away. Of course they lose on every policy they write, requiring more and more subsidy. Eventually we end up with "single payer" anyway. And I suspect this was the game plan all along.
We need two types - some sort of maintenance program for physicals and such and 'insurance' for if your kid gets leukemia.
I think this is a good idea. But I would say maybe not even two type of coverage. Why not just have people pay out of pocket for there yearly flu, bumps, bruises, checkups, screenings, etc? Then just have some type of catastrophic coverage.
Personally I think HSA are a great way to do this. In our company you set how much you want in your account each year. You get that money from the start of the year and pay for it the rest of the year by having a portion come out of your paycheck. Best of all it is done before taxes.
Let's start with profit margins at insurance companies are like 4% and under. So any "non profit" company has a 4% advantage.
Unfortunately the tendency of non profits is not to work efficiently since there is no incentive to. So that 4% is likely to get wasted in administrative expenses from the get go.
Further, if you cap executive salaries like that you will end up with people who can't cut it at the private insurers. Those executives typically make that much because they earn it. Obviously some of them are losers and they tend to get fired. But for the most part the compensation is the function of the market. If you pay peanuts, you hire monkeys, is the rule.
Finally there are already non profit co-ops out there operating. Experience is that their premiums are no lower than competing private corporations, probably for all the reasons I've mentioned.
So, no it is not a cure all.
The only way it will "work" will be to take subsidies from taxpayers. This will allow them to undercut private insurers, taking business away. Of course they lose on every policy they write, requiring more and more subsidy. Eventually we end up with "single payer" anyway. And I suspect this was the game plan all along.
i never mentioned salaries being capped at the private companies....the private companies themselves with their shareholders and board will have to decide what their ceo is worth....they will not let the company fall, before renegotiating their salaries....
and i believe i had read profits for health insurance were around 6%...still a small number as you stated, but it is money that can be saved if the public option insurance plan is efficient....if they are not efficient, the Public option will become more expensive for the plan holders than purchasing a private plan and the plan holders will drop the public insurance plan and buy the private plan....and the public option falls by the wayside...pure capitalism....
As far as having the tax payer's subsidize....it is in the House 3200 bill that the plan must be 100% paid for by the pilicy plan holders ONLY....
It is also in the house 3200 plan that the policy holders can be charged a certain percentage more for their policies so to build up a kitty of money for emergencies, for when the public insurance plan might have underestimated their expenses....so THAT NO TAXES would ever be used...besides the fact as stated the law reads no taxes can be used...policy holder's premiums are to pay for it...if prices go up for the public insurance plan then prices go up for the policy holders....
No, I may not have made myself clear. If you cap salaries at the public entitites you will not attract top managerial talent, only people who couldn't cut it at the private, better paying, insurers.
How long do you think the no subsidies rule will continue? We were assured that FNMA were not going to cost the public anything. That was wrong. When, not if, these public entities run a deficit Congress will pony up the money.
It is pure economics: risk costs something. Insurance companies are in the risk business. Gov't cannot repeal the laws of risk and reward. It is simply statistical. So given there is adequate competition right now how will additional public entities reduce costs?
How long do you think the no subsidies rule will continue? We were assured that FNMA were not going to cost the public anything. That was wrong. When, not if, these public entities run a deficit Congress will pony up the money.
It is pure economics: risk costs something. Insurance companies are in the risk business. Gov't cannot repeal the laws of risk and reward. It is simply statistical. So given there is adequate competition right now how will additional public entities reduce costs?
No, I may not have made myself clear. If you cap salaries at the public entitites you will not attract top managerial talent, only people who couldn't cut it at the private, better paying, insurers.
How long do you think the no subsidies rule will continue? We were assured that FNMA were not going to cost the public anything. That was wrong. When, not if, these public entities run a deficit Congress will pony up the money.
It is pure economics: risk costs something. Insurance companies are in the risk business. Gov't cannot repeal the laws of risk and reward. It is simply statistical. So given there is adequate competition right now how will additional public entities reduce costs?
your wrong...the private sector can do what they wish with their salaries of their ceos...
I NEVER MENTIONED A GOVERNMENT REGULATED CAP.
Are you saying the shareholders and board can not cut the salary of their ceo position?
don't be silly...they will do what is right for the company...if they can find a ceo replacement, who can make them a profit, they will in order to be more competetive....and if he is not as greedy as the other ceo wanting more money, then so be it.
you are a fool if you think someone at the 5 -10 million dollar level ceo is not capable of running a big corporation profitably....and only if they paid $100 million a year, could they do it....someone sold you the brooklyn bridge rab...on that one!!!!
Varth Dader
Member
No, I may not have made myself clear. If you cap salaries at the public entitites you will not attract top managerial talent, only people who couldn't cut it at the private, better paying, insurers.
How long do you think the no subsidies rule will continue? We were assured that FNMA were not going to cost the public anything. That was wrong. When, not if, these public entities run a deficit Congress will pony up the money.
It is pure economics: risk costs something. Insurance companies are in the risk business. Gov't cannot repeal the laws of risk and reward. It is simply statistical. So given there is adequate competition right now how will additional public entities reduce costs?
your wrong...the private sector can do what they wish with their salaries of their ceos...
I NEVER MENTIONED A GOVERNMENT REGULATED CAP.
Are you saying the shareholders and board can not cut the salary of their ceo position?
don't be silly...they will do what is right for the company...if they can find a ceo replacement, who can make them a profit, they will in order to be more competetive....and if he is not as greedy as the other ceo wanting more money, then so be it.
you are a fool if you think someone at the 5 -10 million dollar level ceo is not capable of running a big corporation profitably....and only if they paid $100 million a year, could they do it....someone sold you the brooklyn bridge rab...on that one!!!!
They rejected the brooklyn bridge when we tried to sell it at 5-10 million dollars, but if you sell it for $100 million, they might actually buy it!
Oy. Let's try this one last time:
If you have a public entity that caps its executive salaries, they will not be able to compete effectively for top managerial talent against private entities that can pay whatever they want. That is assuming the caps are below the "market rate" for such talent. If they arent below that market rate, then what is the point of having them?
I think your understanding of the job market and executive pay is the thing you were sold a bill of goods on. Executives at that level are under tremendous stress and basically have no lives. They are interested in making as much money as possible. If they weren't they would go into government. And the best execs also produce the best results for their companies, and so are well worth their salaries.
But you haven't answered the objection that a public entity still has to contend with the statistical realities of insurance.
If you have a public entity that caps its executive salaries, they will not be able to compete effectively for top managerial talent against private entities that can pay whatever they want. That is assuming the caps are below the "market rate" for such talent. If they arent below that market rate, then what is the point of having them?
I think your understanding of the job market and executive pay is the thing you were sold a bill of goods on. Executives at that level are under tremendous stress and basically have no lives. They are interested in making as much money as possible. If they weren't they would go into government. And the best execs also produce the best results for their companies, and so are well worth their salaries.
But you haven't answered the objection that a public entity still has to contend with the statistical realities of insurance.
judyd
Active Member
No, I may not have made myself clear. If you cap salaries at the public entitites you will not attract top managerial talent, only people who couldn't cut it at the private, better paying, insurers.
How long do you think the no subsidies rule will continue? We were assured that FNMA were not going to cost the public anything. That was wrong. When, not if, these public entities run a deficit Congress will pony up the money.
It is pure economics: risk costs something. Insurance companies are in the risk business. Gov't cannot repeal the laws of risk and reward. It is simply statistical. So given there is adequate competition right now how will additional public entities reduce costs?
Are you forgetting that the US is in a serious job crunch these days? There are millions who have either lost their jobs or had their salaries cut. And for the most part this was done by highly paid executives. Also, a lot of high caliber executives have also lost their jobs in the last year or so, and if there is one who is in office and complaining about his salary cut--well, there are at least 100 ready to take his job at a much lower salary.
No one is indispensable--especially those who drove their companies to the brink of financial ruin.
Oy. Let's try this one last time:
If you have a public entity that caps its executive salaries, they will not be able to compete effectively for top managerial talent against private entities that can pay whatever they want. That is assuming the caps are below the "market rate" for such talent. If they arent below that market rate, then what is the point of having them?
I think your understanding of the job market and executive pay is the thing you were sold a bill of goods on. Executives at that level are under tremendous stress and basically have no lives. They are interested in making as much money as possible. If they weren't they would go into government. And the best execs also produce the best results for their companies, and so are well worth their salaries.
But you haven't answered the objection that a public entity still has to contend with the statistical realities of insurance.
I disagree with you....you have been sold a bill of goods....there are plenty of QUALIFIED ceo's out there that could whoop that ceo making 100 million a year's butt and then wipe the floor with it.... the ONLY reason is because the boaqrds and ceo's are in cahoots together...board members are just CEO's from other companies whose business does not conflict...they all run in the same circles and they are the ones who did THIS...make it where ceo's get so much more of the pie than previously when they were making 100 or 200 times the average worker to now nearing 400 times the average worker.
Goood smart people who are not greedy are out there to be had.....more transparency in the hiring practice to the shareholders and disclosure of deals to them might actually curb the board or some sort of rules put on to the board to prevent them from giving their ceo buddies the world and more on compensation and exit deals....
Shareholders are clueless on what is being stolen from them, and the ones in the know, are just ignored.....until something bad happens...
all the shareholders in 401k's are more than likely not the ones paying attention but the ones that rely on their fund managers....they are being ripped off imo, by these huge salaries...no where in the EU would they get their salaries or in Australia...
There is always a limit to what one should pay for any position and not just lower level employees, but every position....including the CEO.
judyd
Active Member
Typical Liberal short-sightedness.
Executives at the top level are hard to come by in any environment because they produce excellent results for the companies they run.
I believe the ones the government is targeting are the ones who didn't produce excellent results--the government had to bail them out.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 388
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 6K
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 90
- Replies
- 58
- Views
- 215
- Replies
- 83
- Views
- 437
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8049
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-