Remind us again how Health Care will be voluntary

[toomuchtime_]

While there would be a small savings from the lack of a profit in a government run program, the true savings would be in the administration of such a plan. Currently, administrative costs eat up over 25% of healthcare costs. The argument is that government administration costs would be drastically less. Of course, this is speculation, but I would be interested in seeing how it pans out. If true, a government plan could run with much lower overhead, which in turn would equate to much lower premiums.

Obviously, if this turns out to be true, private insurance companies would not be able to compete as most would turn to the public option. That seems to be what scares the insurance companies the most.

The examples of low administrative costs for government programs come from programs that run without competition so there are no marketing costs. In addition, a significant amount of an insurance company's revenues comes from investment returns on its reserves. If the public plan invests its reserves in Treasuries, as Medicare and SS do, it will earn less than private competitors and have to make up the difference through higher premiums, and if it invests in the private sector, it will have to add another administrative department, in addition to the marketing department, that other government programs do not have. Marketing and investment professionals that can compete effectively with those in private companies don't come cheap, so there goes the argument about lower administrative costs.

A government program would not be looking to turn a profit to reinvest to earn greater profits.

You misunderstand. Insurance companies base their premiums an average of expected costs over the next many years and accumulate reserves against future costs; part of what you pay in today is for what you will cost the company next year or in ten years, etc. Accordingly, they accumulate large reserves against these future liabilities and this money is invested, and the income from these investments keeps premiums lower than they otherwise would be.

The thing to remember is that a public plan that does not receive subsidies is essentially a non profit insurance company, and we have always had non profit insurance companies and for the well run ones the overhead costs have always been a little lower than the costs of for profit insurance companies, yet the for profits have always been able to compete successfully against them. In addition, the non profits have always found it necessary to invest heavily in marketing and to seek high investment returns on their reserves in order to compete successfully against the for profits.

 

[Oddball]

Perhaps he repeats the same shit over and over again because that shit he repeats is the only sane response to the same shit that other people say over and over again?

I note that nobody ever really responds to the FACTS that he keeps repeating, Elvis.

Step back, take a deep breath and explain to me why the USA has to spend twice as much per capital on health care and still has morbity and motalisty statictics that are WORSE than any other first world nation spending less.

That is one of those pernicious facts that I note people like you completely ignore in favor of attacking the people who keep repeating it.

As you know, I do NOT think there is a solution to this problem that ANY OF US is going to like.

But not one person here who wants the system to stay the way it is now ever really attempts to deal with the statisically valid complaints of those who imagine that the system needs to change

You can prove anything you want to with statistics.

Besides that, the presumption is that Dig Daddy Big Gubbament is going to control those costs, when there's absolutely no track record of them controlling any other costs.....EVER.

You're looking for change, while looking to the worst possible and least efficient agent of that change.

 

[Toro]

But I read those POOR INVESTMENTS of the insurance companies with their reserves is WHY our health care premiums keep going up....

That's not the reason.

The primary reason is because the cost of new technologies to extend life has been rising at a faster rate than the economy as a whole. That is why healthcare costs have been rising faster than the economy for the past 40 years. The investment returns of the heatlhcare companies have been about what one would have expected, given the market environment.

 

[Toro]

But I read those POOR INVESTMENTS of the insurance companies with their reserves is WHY our health care premiums keep going up.... Look at AIG we had to bail this insurance company out for over a hundred billion? It might actually help the gvt plan that they don't have this extra money to invest in Mortgaged Backed Securities, like many insurance companies did....

And they will not need to run a marketing plan or spend money marketing to compete, because they are the ones that already have a lower overhead, the private sector may spend alot in marketing and lobbying to help themselves or to help compete against the gvt plan imo.

Check your premise....AIG was only the conduit.

Billions of AIG's federal aid went to foreign banks - USATODAY.com

AIG was not a conduit. AIG was an insurance company that wrote credit default swaps without reserving enough to pay for them. Their contracts were no different than an insurance company writing hurricane insurance, under-reserving then not having enough to pay claims after a hurricane hit. The capital injected by the government into AIG was used to pay off the claims owed by AIG in the swaps market.

 

[Oddball]

But I read those POOR INVESTMENTS of the insurance companies with their reserves is WHY our health care premiums keep going up....

What drives costs up is the nature of third-party payers, which removes price sensitivity from the equation.

 

[Toro]

There is little doubt IMHO that a national medical system would create enormous economies of scale that would reduce paper work and redundancies. The single biggest reason why Canadian doctors who have moved to the US move back to Canada is because they are sick of all the paperwork and fighting insurance companies to pay and pay for treatments.

That does not mean a national health insurance would be more efficient in total, but this would definitely be one benefit.

 

[elvis]

As you probably know, Chris, I don't have the same faith that the solution is Single Payer Univeraal Insurance that you do.

Nevertheless, I must commend you on keeping you cool and responding with FACTS in the face of these childish personal attacks on you ,and despite the fact that your detractors bring nothing to the debate other than their vacuous talking points which are, as you and I both know, mostly lies exaggerations and angry right wing nonsense.

The solution is, I think, a combination of some kind of universal HC coverage (not insurance, but plain old HC, AND a dramatic INCREASE in SUPPLY.

You probably know that we are still training the same number of Doctors per year as we were training thirty years ago.

So naturally the market is responding as we'd exect it too.

Demand is up and supply is down, ergo the price of HC continues to escalate much faster than the prices of most other things.

It won't matter whether we put into service a single player system or we keep the same system, the price of HC will continue to rise as long as the supply/demand curve is working again us.

If you or wanted to go to medical school in the USA, we'd find it difficult to get in regardless of our GPIs, and the cost of going to that school would insure that we had to make a huge amount of money when we got out.

Now compare that situation to the experience of somebody going to medical or nursing school in most other civilized nations.

Their students go to school for free or for not very much money.

Friend of mine is going to medical school in Germany, right now.

Her cost?

Almost nothing.

Here in the USA she'd get out of medical school burdened with school loans and would therefore have to make big bucks just to get out of debt.

If we want to solve the probllem of health care we have to increase the SUPPLY of it, first.

Any other solution will fail to solve the root cause of the problem.

childish personal attacks? the fuckhead repeats the same shit over and over and over again. and he resorts to personal attacks of his own. I thought you would be the LAST person on here to be partisan.

Perhaps he repeats the same shit over and over again because that shit he repeats is the only sane response to the same shit that other people say over and over again?

I note that nobody ever really responds to the FACTS that he keeps repeating, Elvis.

Step back, take a deep breath and explain to me why the USA has to spend twice as much per capital on health care and still has morbity and motalisty statictics that are WORSE than any other first world nation spending less.

That is one of those pernicious facts that I note people like you completely ignore in favor of attacking the people who keep repeating it.

As you know, I do NOT think there is a solution to this problem that ANY OF US is going to like.


But not one person here who wants the system to stay the way it is now ever really attempts to deal with the statisically valid complaints of those who imagine that the system needs to change

You get your information from Michael Moore, I see.

We have refuted Chris, the mental midget, on this issues and many others, and he continues to spew the same shit.

I look forward to you calling Chris out the next time he resorts to personal attacks.

 

[Oddball]

AIG was not a conduit. AIG was an insurance company that wrote credit default swaps without reserving enough to pay for them. Their contracts were no different than an insurance company writing hurricane insurance, under-reserving then not having enough to pay claims after a hurricane hit. The capital injected by the government into AIG was used to pay off the claims owed by AIG in the swaps market.

Irrelevant to the fact that they were directed from on high as to whom those funds would go to as a condition of the bailout.

 

[toomuchtime_]

But I read those POOR INVESTMENTS of the insurance companies with their reserves is WHY our health care premiums keep going up....

That's not the reason.

The primary reason is because the cost of new technologies to extend life has been rising at a faster rate than the economy as a whole. That is why healthcare costs have been rising faster than the economy for the past 40 years. The investment returns of the heatlhcare companies have been about what one would have expected, given the market environment.

One could also argue that an important reason healthcare costs have been growing is the existence of health insurance. Without health insurance, most people would not be able to afford these expensive new technologies, there would not be much of a market for them, and that would mean there would not be much incentive to develop these technologies. If the health insurance programs now being considered in Congress pass, it will significantly expand the market for these expensive new technologies which will provide new incentives to develop more of these expensive new technologies which we can expect will increase the cost of health insurance unless, of course, Congress also limits what the new health insurance policies will cover.

 

[Oddball]

There is little doubt IMHO that a national medical system would create enormous economies of scale that would reduce paper work and redundancies. The single biggest reason why Canadian doctors who have moved to the US move back to Canada is because they are sick of all the paperwork and fighting insurance companies to pay and pay for treatments.

That does not mean a national health insurance would be more efficient in total, but this would definitely be one benefit.

Yeah, right.....A federal takeover reducing paperwork, red tape, and bureaucracy.

Now, tell us all the one about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[Toro]

One could also argue that an important reason healthcare costs have been growing is the existence of health insurance. Without health insurance, most people would not be able to afford these expensive new technologies, there would not be much of a market for them, and that would mean there would not be much incentive to develop these technologies. If the health insurance programs now being considered in Congress pass, it will significantly expand the market for these expensive new technologies which will provide new incentives to develop more of these expensive new technologies which we can expect will increase the cost of health insurance unless, of course, Congress also limits what the new health insurance policies will cover.

Oh absolutely.

One of the risks messing with the system is that it could limit new innovation. It is no accident that medical technology breakthroughs occur in the US disproportionally to the size of the country. In some respects, the US subsidizes the rest of the world as the initial adopters first develop a market, allowing the company to reach a critical mass and greater economies of scale, which allows the company to sell at lower prices both here and abroad. I don't think that medical research would collapse with a national healthcare system but I think the risk is substantial that it would be curtailed.

 

[Toro]

Yeah, right.....A federal takeover reducing paperwork, red tape, and bureaucracy.

Now, tell us all the one about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

That's what doctors have told me.

What is the basis of your conclusion, other than preconceived biases?

BTW, this idea that corporations are always more efficient and government is always less efficient is just nonsense and should not be taken off the bumper stickers where it belongs.

In Canada, half the provinces have government run auto insurance. Having lived in provinces that have both private and government-run auto insurance, I can tell you that working with the government is so much less of a pain in the ass than working with privately held companies. That doesn't mean I necessarily support government run auto insurance, for a variety of reasons, but as an end user, it is far more efficient.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, I dunno....How about direct experience with bureaucracy, from both sides of the fence??

Of course, this assertion that Big Daddy Big Gubbament can be more efficient and cost effective than private business (at least those not significantly imposed upon by onerous regulations and false claims of a "free market") would be credible if one could find just one unqualified example of how that's so.....But nobody seems to be able to pull that one off.

 

[Harry Dresden]

As you probably know, Chris, I don't have the same faith that the solution is Single Payer Univeraal Insurance that you do.

Nevertheless, I must commend you on keeping you cool and responding with FACTS in the face of these childish personal attacks on you ,and despite the fact that your detractors bring nothing to the debate other than their vacuous talking points which are, as you and I both know, mostly lies exaggerations and angry right wing nonsense.

The solution is, I think, a combination of some kind of universal HC coverage (not insurance, but plain old HC, AND a dramatic INCREASE in SUPPLY.

You probably know that we are still training the same number of Doctors per year as we were training thirty years ago.

So naturally the market is responding as we'd exect it too.

Demand is up and supply is down, ergo the price of HC continues to escalate much faster than the prices of most other things.

It won't matter whether we put into service a single player system or we keep the same system, the price of HC will continue to rise as long as the supply/demand curve is working again us.

If you or wanted to go to medical school in the USA, we'd find it difficult to get in regardless of our GPIs, and the cost of going to that school would insure that we had to make a huge amount of money when we got out.

Now compare that situation to the experience of somebody going to medical or nursing school in most other civilized nations.

Their students go to school for free or for not very much money.

Friend of mine is going to medical school in Germany, right now.

Her cost?

Almost nothing.

Here in the USA she'd get out of medical school burdened with school loans and would therefore have to make big bucks just to get out of debt.

If we want to solve the probllem of health care we have to increase the SUPPLY of it, first.

Any other solution will fail to solve the root cause of the problem.

childish personal attacks? the fuckhead repeats the same shit over and over and over again. and he resorts to personal attacks of his own. I thought you would be the LAST person on here to be partisan.

Perhaps he repeats the same shit over and over again because that shit he repeats is the only sane response to the same shit that other people say over and over again?

I note that nobody ever really responds to the FACTS that he keeps repeating, Elvis.

Step back, take a deep breath and explain to me why the USA has to spend twice as much per capital on health care and still has morbity and motalisty statictics that are WORSE than any other first world nation spending less.

That is one of those pernicious facts that I note people like you completely ignore in favor of attacking the people who keep repeating it.

As you know, I do NOT think there is a solution to this problem that ANY OF US is going to like.

But not one person here who wants the system to stay the way it is now ever really attempts to deal with the statisically valid complaints of those who imagine that the system needs to change

Ed...Chrisseys one liners were being shot down when i first came here in Dec.....countless people have shot his shit down over the months....but yet he keeps throwing the same link,the same 1 payer system shit right back at ya....thats why you dont see no one replying to his crap....ITS ALREADY BEEN DONE...more than once.....it was the same way with his gun bullshit....the Brady Link,over and over....the guys a empty ball sack Ed.....sooner or later it will dawn on ya....

 

[Toro]

Oh, I dunno....How about direct experience with bureaucracy, from both sides of the fence??

Yup. Me too, having drawn a paycheck from both.

Of course, this assertion that Big Daddy Big Gubbament can be more efficient and cost effective than private business (at least those not significantly imposed upon by onerous regulations and false claims of a "free market") would be credible if one could find just one unqualified example of how that's so.....But nobody seems to be able to pull that one off.

Again, I will hold out Canadian auto insurance.

In Canada, the provinces set the insurance scheme. In general, rates are lower in provinces with government schemes adjusted for risk claims. Claims are also settled faster. It usually is much less of a hassle than dealing with private insurers.

I don't think governments should be providing auto insurance as I don't think the government should be risking the taxpayers' savings, but it is generally more efficient.

 

[Chris]

There is little doubt IMHO that a national medical system would create enormous economies of scale that would reduce paper work and redundancies. The single biggest reason why Canadian doctors who have moved to the US move back to Canada is because they are sick of all the paperwork and fighting insurance companies to pay and pay for treatments.

That does not mean a national health insurance would be more efficient in total, but this would definitely be one benefit.

Shhh....

We don't want anyone here to know.

It will ruin their fantasy!

 

[Chris]

childish personal attacks? the fuckhead repeats the same shit over and over and over again. and he resorts to personal attacks of his own. I thought you would be the LAST person on here to be partisan.

Perhaps he repeats the same shit over and over again because that shit he repeats is the only sane response to the same shit that other people say over and over again?

I note that nobody ever really responds to the FACTS that he keeps repeating, Elvis.

Step back, take a deep breath and explain to me why the USA has to spend twice as much per capital on health care and still has morbity and motalisty statictics that are WORSE than any other first world nation spending less.

That is one of those pernicious facts that I note people like you completely ignore in favor of attacking the people who keep repeating it.

As you know, I do NOT think there is a solution to this problem that ANY OF US is going to like.

But not one person here who wants the system to stay the way it is now ever really attempts to deal with the statisically valid complaints of those who imagine that the system needs to change

Ed...Chrisseys one liners were being shot down when i first came here in Dec.....countless people have shot his shit down over the months....but yet he keeps throwing the same link,the same 1 payer system shit right back at ya....thats why you dont see no one replying to his crap....ITS ALREADY BEEN DONE...more than once.....it was the same way with his gun bullshit....the Brady Link,over and over....the guys a empty ball sack Ed.....sooner or later it will dawn on ya....

When people resort to personal attacks, that is when you know they have nothing.

 

[Oddball]

When people resort to personal attacks, that is when you know they have nothing.

Yet slightly more than the dimwits who can only parrot platitudes and slogans.

 

[KittenKoder]

I just realized something, Obama wasn't lying, it will be voluntary ...

... if you don't like it you can just die ...

 

[toomuchtime_]

I just realized something, Obama wasn't lying, it will be voluntary ...

... if you don't like it you can just die ...

Actually, that would be an improvement over the plan being put together in the Senate. You will be required to buy health insurance and if you refuse, you will be fined $1,000 every year. The catch is that in order to get the cost of the bills down, there will be a drastic reduction in the subsidies offered from the original Kennedy-Dodd bill, so some people who can't afford health insurance now will still not be able to afford but under the new plan they will have $1,000 per year less to spend on their health care. The bill does provide that in some hardship cases the fine may be waived. Of course, these people will still not have health insurance, but no doubt they will be very grateful that Obama/Congress are not fining them.

To make matters worse, all businesses with over 25 employees will be required to provide health insurance to all employees or to pay $750 per year for each full time employee and $375 per year for each part time employee. That amounts to an economic incentive not to provide health insurance, so now we'll have people who will lose their employer provided health insurance and since they won't be able to afford to buy it on their own, they will be fined $1,000.

Is this change we can believe in or is it all just a horrible nightmare?

The Associated Press: Key Senate Democrats trim cost of health care bill