Do Americans favor the creation of a public health insurance?

[AVG-JOE]

Many Americans favor a public plan in principle, but the real question is, do they support it if it will raise their taxes, increase their health insurance premiums or increase the deficit?

Think about how much money you and your employer spend on your health care.

Nationwide, that is a SHIT-PILE of money!

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe

From what I've seen by looking at some annual reports of large health insurance companies, profits as a percentage of gross revenues average only about 3%, so if that's the only argument for a public plan, it's not much of an argument. You could argue that administrative costs as a percentage of revenues appear to be significantly lower for our existing public plan, Medicare, than for private insurance companies, but some of that difference appears to be the result of differences in accounting between the government and the private sector and when you factor in the higher returns private plans get from their investments than Medicare gets from its Treasuries, it's not at all clear that a public plan offering the same coverage as a private plan would be significantly cheaper unless the rates were kept artificially low and this would mean either higher taxes or larger deficits.

On the contrary, there is good reason to think a coverage from a public plan would cost more than from a private plan because there would be tremendous political pressure to include the expanded benefits and terms of service Obama has advocated in a public plan, such as accepting pre existing conditions at standard rates and expanded mental health benefits. Including these expanded benefits and terms of service would make the public plan more expensive than private plans, having the effect that only those with pre existing conditions or in need of extensive mental health benefits or other expanded benefits would choose the public plan, thus further driving up its costs. There are only two ways the government could keep the public plan price competitive with private plans: raise taxes or incur larger deficits to keep premiums artificially low or require all employers to provide the same expanded coverage the public plan did, thus raising the cost of health insurance for US companies and their employees and making US companies less competitive with foreign companies with all the negative economic consequences this would entail.

Also worrisome is the fact that our current public plan, Medicare, will go broke in about five years, according to the last estimate I've seen, because Congress has irresponsibly yielded to political pressure for years and not raised the payroll taxes that are supposed to fund Medicare high enough to keep it solvent, and now these same politicans want us to believe they will behave responsibly if they are allowed to create a new public plan.

Obama wants to rush this thing through Congress so you will not have time to think about these things.

Ok. now add to that 3% for the shareholders (which is significant on its own) the costs to maintain the executive class, the costs for the lawyers needed to keep from paying claims, advertising, public relations and let's not forget government lobbying efforts, (that alone would pay for a few pre-existing conditions).

These are just the first few off the top of my head... Can you think of more health-care premium dollars that would be better spent on patient care?

The only difference between a private bureaucracy and a public bureaucracy is that the private one costs more and does a better job of skimming money off the top. That should say something in this country!

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

And everyone would be covered.

How come we give murderers court appointed lawyers for practically nothing but we don't give sick people healthcare?

There is no reason to think a public plan has anything to do with universal coverage. For example, the Kennedy-Dodd bill would include a public plan and leave an estimated 37 million Americans without insurance coverage. Those currently uninsured who would receive it under this bill would get it because of insurance subsidies that have nothing to do with a public plan.

We've got FedEx and UPS competing with the US Mail. Does anyone think that's a bad idea?

Heck no!

But there is a difference - FedEx, UPS and The USPS actually do something.

All you need to have an insurance company is a big pile of money and a computer. Insurance isn't an industry... it's a tracking system for payments to other industries. Why should there be risk-worthy profits in that?

-Joe

 

[Soaring]

Let's make it clear that medicare is not free. I paid into the system for the 36 years that I worked, and I am still paying 96 dollars a month into the system along with paying for my secondary medical insurance. However, I still prefer the current system over what Obama is proposing.

 

[jreeves]

Social Security - the biggest, most complicated, most heavily regulated insurance company in the history of mankind is run by YOUR federal government at less than 1% for ALL overhead and administrative costs.

Don't tell me that We, The People can't efficiently run our own insurance program.

The less money required to send insurance executives to conferences in Cancun and pay bonuses, the more money available to pay claims for beneficiaries who have paid into the system and the cheaper the premiums need to be.

Duh!

-Joe

Are you seriously using social security as the model for how healthcare should be run? Wow. I didn't know that anyone was a fan of social security. Social security has been leaking and flat-out losing money for years. Remember how Al Gore wanted to put it in a lock box? Because the program stinks. We put money in and somehow it disappears. By 2025 or 2030 it is supposed to be all dried up and gone, despite the chunk they take every month from my paycheck and yours. That is why, sir, I seriously doubt overhead costs are less than 1%. And there's no way this federal government can pull of a successful medical program, especially if social security, medicare and medicaid are examples for how they'd like to pull it off.

Then I'm sure you must not allow your parents to accept Social Security or Medicare.

He won't have to tell them not to accept SS or Medicare, it's going bankrupt on its own.

 

[jreeves]

One poll says: Yes.

Now, who believes the polls, right? I mean polls are done by mostly left-leaning organizations, right?

Not this one.

Okay, so this was a poll done by a conservative group that supports public health insurance, right?

No. This poll was done by a conservative group and PAID FOR by private health insurance companies.

Well, then the results must be very close, right?

No. This poll shows that over 80%, that's right, over 80% of Americans support the creation of public health insurance.

New Poll Shows Tremendous Support for Public Health Care Option | OurFuture.org

The 2009 Health Confidence Survey: Public Opinion on Health Reform Varies; Strong Support for Insurance Market Reform and Public Plan Option, Mixed Response to Tax Cap | EBRI

Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase” according to EBRI, a conservative business research organization. This flatly contradicts conservatives’ loudest attack against President Obama’s plan to provide quality, affordable health care for all.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) calls itself “the most authoritative and objective source of information” on the issues of employee retirement and health benefits. Founded in 1978, EBRI says it “is the gold standard for private analysts and decision makers, government policymakers, the media, and the public.” And EBRI is funded by many of the largest corporations in America.
EBRI’s biggest donors include: AT&T, Bank of America, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Mills, IBM, JBMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Northop Grumman, Schering-Plough, Schwab, T.Rowe Price, UBS Financial, and Wal-Mart. EBRI also receives large contributions from the insurance industry, including: Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA, Hartford, Kaiser Permanente, Massachusetts Mutual, Metropolitan Life, Union Labor Life, and UnitedHealth.
Here’s who paid for the poll, as stated by EBRI:

This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.
​

Many Americans favor a public plan in principle, but the real question is, do they support it if it will raise their taxes, increase their health insurance premiums or increase the deficit?

Think about how much money you and your employer spend on your health care.

Nationwide, that is a SHIT-PILE of money!

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe

Lmao....
Government waste would eat up the private insurance profits and still be demanding to be fed....

 

[jreeves]

Think about how much money you and your employer spend on your health care.

Nationwide, that is a SHIT-PILE of money!

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe

And everyone would be covered.

How come we give murderers court appointed lawyers for practically nothing but we don't give sick people healthcare?

There is no reason to think a public plan has anything to do with universal coverage. For example, the Kennedy-Dodd bill would include a public plan and leave an estimated 37 million Americans without insurance coverage. Those currently uninsured who would receive it under this bill would get it because of insurance subsidies that have nothing to do with a public plan.

Would the 10 million non-American citizens that are uninsured(that are counted in the 50 million uninsured) be covered by the Kennedy-Dodd bill?

 

[jreeves]

Many Americans favor a public plan in principle, but the real question is, do they support it if it will raise their taxes, increase their health insurance premiums or increase the deficit?

Think about how much money you and your employer spend on your health care.

Nationwide, that is a SHIT-PILE of money!

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe

And everyone would be covered.

How come we give murderers court appointed lawyers for practically nothing but we don't give sick people healthcare?

Because we have a Constitution....

 

[Political Junky]

"Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent, far below the administrative costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090610_why_so_scared_of_a_public_plan/

 

[jreeves]

"Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent, far below the administrative costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."

I would dare to say a majority of the costs of private insurers have more to do with administrative costs. This would be due to a sue first society....Medicare doesn't exactly have to worry about being sued...

 

[Political Junky]

"Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent, far below the administrative costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."

I would dare to say a majority of the costs of private insurers have more to do with administrative costs. This would be due to a sue first society....Medicare doesn't exactly have to worry about being sued...

Nothing at all to do with multi-million dollar salaries, private Gulfstreams, or golfing in Scotland?

 

[jreeves]

"Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent, far below the administrative costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."

I would dare to say a majority of the costs of private insurers have more to do with administrative costs. This would be due to a sue first society....Medicare doesn't exactly have to worry about being sued...

Nothing at all to do with multi-million dollar salaries, private Gulfstreams, or golfing in Scotland?

or multi-million dollar turtle tunnels, multi-million dollar fly research....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Many Americans favor a public plan in principle, but the real question is, do they support it if it will raise their taxes, increase their health insurance premiums or increase the deficit?

Think about how much money you and your employer spend on your health care.

Nationwide, that is a SHIT-PILE of money!

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe

Lmao....
Government waste would eat up the private insurance profits and still be demanding to be fed....

Not if We, The People were to revisit the definition of We, The People.

If not our responsibility, whose?

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

"Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent, far below the administrative costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."

I would dare to say a majority of the costs of private insurers have more to do with administrative costs. This would be due to a sue first society....Medicare doesn't exactly have to worry about being sued...

Perhaps that's because when Medicare gets a claim they pay it using a definitive rule book instead of hiring a lawyer to keep a precedent from being set.....

-Joe

 

[auditor0007]

Here is the biggest problem. If we don't make health insurance mandatory, nothing will keep costs from rising, and there is no other way to insure everyone. Either you have a one payer system that is, for the most part, paid for by taxes, and everyone is covered, or you have a mostly private system where insurance is mandatory and no one can be denied. Rates are based on the over overall risk pool

This is one thing the Hillary was 100% correct about. You cannot have universal healthcare unless everyone pays something into the system.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Think about how much money you and your employer spend on your health care.

Nationwide, that is a SHIT-PILE of money!

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe

From what I've seen by looking at some annual reports of large health insurance companies, profits as a percentage of gross revenues average only about 3%, so if that's the only argument for a public plan, it's not much of an argument. You could argue that administrative costs as a percentage of revenues appear to be significantly lower for our existing public plan, Medicare, than for private insurance companies, but some of that difference appears to be the result of differences in accounting between the government and the private sector and when you factor in the higher returns private plans get from their investments than Medicare gets from its Treasuries, it's not at all clear that a public plan offering the same coverage as a private plan would be significantly cheaper unless the rates were kept artificially low and this would mean either higher taxes or larger deficits.

On the contrary, there is good reason to think a coverage from a public plan would cost more than from a private plan because there would be tremendous political pressure to include the expanded benefits and terms of service Obama has advocated in a public plan, such as accepting pre existing conditions at standard rates and expanded mental health benefits. Including these expanded benefits and terms of service would make the public plan more expensive than private plans, having the effect that only those with pre existing conditions or in need of extensive mental health benefits or other expanded benefits would choose the public plan, thus further driving up its costs. There are only two ways the government could keep the public plan price competitive with private plans: raise taxes or incur larger deficits to keep premiums artificially low or require all employers to provide the same expanded coverage the public plan did, thus raising the cost of health insurance for US companies and their employees and making US companies less competitive with foreign companies with all the negative economic consequences this would entail.

Also worrisome is the fact that our current public plan, Medicare, will go broke in about five years, according to the last estimate I've seen, because Congress has irresponsibly yielded to political pressure for years and not raised the payroll taxes that are supposed to fund Medicare high enough to keep it solvent, and now these same politicians want us to believe they will behave responsibly if they are allowed to create a new public plan.

Obama wants to rush this thing through Congress so you will not have time to think about these things.

Ok. now add to that 3% for the shareholders (which is significant on its own) the costs to maintain the executive class, the costs for the lawyers needed to keep from paying claims, advertising, public relations and let's not forget government lobbying efforts, (that alone would pay for a few pre-existing conditions).

These are just the first few off the top of my head... Can you think of more health-care premium dollars that would be better spent on patient care?

The only difference between a private bureaucracy and a public bureaucracy is that the private one costs more and does a better job of skimming money off the top. That should say something in this country!

-Joe

Based on our experience with Medicare, the main difference between a private plan and a public plan is that the private plan will charge enough to remain solvent and the public plan will yield to political pressures and become insolvent.

In addition, as I explained above, a public plan will have to include expanded benefits that will raise its cost above the cost of private plans and either force you and your employer to pay more for your health insurance or cause taxes to be increased or create larger deficits. There is no basis in fact or logic for believing that a public plan will lower our overall health insurance costs, and there are good reasons for believing it will cause them to increase.

 

[trueblue]

Social Security - the biggest, most complicated, most heavily regulated insurance company in the history of mankind is run by YOUR federal government at less than 1% for ALL overhead and administrative costs.

Don't tell me that We, The People can't efficiently run our own insurance program.

The less money required to send insurance executives to conferences in Cancun and pay bonuses, the more money available to pay claims for beneficiaries who have paid into the system and the cheaper the premiums need to be.

Duh!

-Joe

Are you seriously using social security as the model for how healthcare should be run? Wow. I didn't know that anyone was a fan of social security. Social security has been leaking and flat-out losing money for years. Remember how Al Gore wanted to put it in a lock box? Because the program stinks. We put money in and somehow it disappears. By 2025 or 2030 it is supposed to be all dried up and gone, despite the chunk they take every month from my paycheck and yours. That is why, sir, I seriously doubt overhead costs are less than 1%. And there's no way this federal government can pull of a successful medical program, especially if social security, medicare and medicaid are examples for how they'd like to pull it off.

Then I'm sure you must not allow your parents to accept Social Security or Medicare.

What my parents do isn't my business, but I am grateful that they have their own retirement accounts and don't have to freeload of the government. That turns the "golden years" into the "trailer park years" real fast...

 

[jreeves]

Think about how much money you and your employer spend on your health care.

Nationwide, that is a SHIT-PILE of money!

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe

Lmao....
Government waste would eat up the private insurance profits and still be demanding to be fed....

Not if We, The People were to revisit the definition of We, The People.

If not our responsibility, whose?

-Joe

I understand, but how has that We, the people done lately? As far as getting politicians to actually represent their interests? When We, The People aren't looking our representatives are paying their special interests and filling their own pockets.

 

[jreeves]

"Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent, far below the administrative costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent."

I would dare to say a majority of the costs of private insurers have more to do with administrative costs. This would be due to a sue first society....Medicare doesn't exactly have to worry about being sued...

Perhaps that's because when Medicare gets a claim they pay it using a definitive rule book instead of hiring a lawyer to keep a precedent from being set.....

-Joe

Their is also list of coverage through private insurance...Do you think Medicare never denies coverage?

 

[JW Frogen]

Even poorly managed it would go a long way to paying for health care if the private insurance profits were removed from the equation.

-Joe

One does not even have to remove private innovation or incentive, in Australia the doctors and most providers are private but the state acts as a universal insurer. Any actuary will tell you the more people in a plan the more cost effective the insurance is. Still, one can also get private insurance here, but it is far more cost effective because it has to compete with the universal insurance.

Yet minimal cost is still required from the public insurance to tie usage with need and maintain the knowledge that no healthcare, of any kind is free.

Certainly the US is doing something wrong when it spends way more per capita than any other developed nation yet gets poorer health outcomes than most.

The problem Obama has is he just gave Congress a one trillion dollar blank check (much of which did not address the cause of the economic crises) and so it is now going to be more difficult to find the funding to start such a system.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Lmao....
Government waste would eat up the private insurance profits and still be demanding to be fed....

Not if We, The People were to revisit the definition of We, The People.

If not our responsibility, whose?

-Joe

I understand, but how has that We, the people done lately? As far as getting politicians to actually represent their interests? When We, The People aren't looking our representatives are paying their special interests and filling their own pockets.

Are you whining, or proposing a solution?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/79107-if-asked-would-you.html

-Joe