We’re number 37! USA USA USA!!

[AvgGuyIA]

Fix the VA and Medicare FIRST then come talking to us about "fixing" health care.

 

[Cuyo]

This is me, searching high and low in this post for any kind of evidence or substantiation of your statement that Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient than private insurance OR your statement that their only problem is that costs are rising too fast for them. Funny how I'm not finding it.

I understand that you will probably accept nothing as evidence to this well known fact. I didn't have a report prepared, I based it on public knowledge and common sense. You look like a fool insinuating that it's not true. But I will humor you.

Administrative Efficiencies
Perhaps the most obvious advantage of public insurance is that it is inexpensive to administer. The public Medicare plan’s administrative overhead costs (in the range of 3 percent) are well below the overhead costs of large companies that are self-insured (5 to 10 percent of premiums), companies in the small group market (25 to 27 percent of premiums), and individual insurance (40 percent of premiums)

That is from page 8 of this study by Berkely: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Hacker_final_to_post.pdf

Use some common sense. When there's a phalanx of people in your HMO making bazillions of dollars, where do you think that money comes from?

As I said, Medicare is in trouble because of rapidly rising medical costs, and poor old johnny live-a-lots who nobody told in 1965 that they were going to live to be 85, not 67.

To "Fix Medicare," you must fix the whole system.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Outsider´s View

As a german, I sometimes do not understand the heat in your debate.
Man, what you already call socialism, would be the lowest standard of healthcare in a lot of industrializes countries.
Anyway, obviously a matter of perspective...

Living in a country, where a healthcare insurance is obligatory, I can tell you, that it is a myth, that any public or state owned system is non-profit orientated.
It is rather an accounting definition how you call a surplus.
In Germany the doctors use a very complex system to charge their costs to the public insurances. Every treatmeant has a point value, which represents a certain worth in EUR.
On the other side is the government fund, all public insurers get their money from.
Simple system: The more points you have via the doctors, the more money you get from the fund.
So, a simple reflux of stomach acid can either be what it is (not many points), or a more difficult thing can be diagnosed, which the doctor gets more points for.

The problem now is, that the government fund (the sum of all payments from the insured) is not limitless available.
Still, it is the interest of all public insurances to get as many points. They even start to train doctors how to "choose" the more lucrative diagnosis.

So, as I see it, you Americans should not think about if the state becomes to powerful, but who is getting his hands into the pot of gold.

As I do have a full-hearted trust in the greed of man, I think, that any system, be it private or public, will be a system, where people try to get a maximum of money out of - better known as profit.

Does competition make a difference ?
I do not think so.
Hands on heart, we all go to the doctr or a hospital, because we trust the one or distrust the other. Or we use a simple calculation of costs:
The best specialist is expensive, so the young doctor will do it.
Or I need a certain operation in case of need and then I just take the one who will save my life or my leg or whatever. Face it: Healthcare is not comparable to buying a car or a computer.
So, it all comes down to what we can afford. And in this regard I prefer a public system like here, where I do have access to specialists, without having to think about the costs.

regards
ze germanguy

Well...you can KEEP YOUR SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE because all you people know about is "Heil Hitler" and being under the subjugation of the State. We Americans are an independent lot who pull ourselves up by our boot straps. We don't need no stinkin' commune to live in. Our Hippies here have tried that already and it doesn't work because sooner or later the hardest working hippie gets tired of doing all the work while the others kick back.

lol. what a ****.

 

[editec]

Here is a basic economics 101 question.

What will happen if the government artificially keeps cost below market value?

Depends on how they do it, doesn't it?

If they do so by paying the lions share of the costs for the consumers then the price of it will continue to escalate.

If they impose price freezes there will be less HC available.

 

[Harry Dresden]

sure harry but the extremists on either side don't usually speak to where most most Americans really are just right or left of the middle LOL

i agree with ya there....but to guys like Dean on the Far left and Lone Star on the far right.....those people are mythological figures....all that exist OR should exist,is what they see...

 

[editec]

Name one area that the government has run efficienctly? Look at what they did to the post office?

The government's interference will only make things 10 times worse.

We certainly have issues regarding our health care. The government' micromanaging is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It will make it much worse.

The reason costs are as high as they are now is because of too much government interference. The best thing the government can do to help our health care system and make it more affordable is get out of the way and stop driving up costs.

Medicare and Medicaid operate at far greater efficiency than the private insurance market. The reason they're "In trouble" is because they can't keep up with the rising costs, and people are living 20 or so years longer than they did in the past.

The poor post office just makes an easy target. It's a service, partially subsidized by customer contributions. It doesn't have to make a profit; Few government programs do. People want their mail, and people don't want the price to go up. Show me someone else who an deliver a letter from California to New Jersey in a few days for 44 cents.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. If we can get back to ECO101, the reason the prices are so high is that providers are pricing their services @ market clearing level, and due to staggering redundancies inherent in the system, and as I said before, we are all subsidizing the uninsured in a ridiculously expensive way. I think the current proposal would do wonders to reign in costs. Add a public option, even more. Single payer, more still. But hey, that's just me.

I'll agree that a hands-off approach would also reduce costs, but in order for it to work, you would have to deny care to non-payers, period.

This is me, searching high and low in this post for any kind of evidence or substantiation of your statement that Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient than private insurance OR your statement that their only problem is that costs are rising too fast for them. Funny how I'm not finding it.

You're not looking very hard then.

Medicades admin costs are 4% of overall costs.

Priavte insurance returns about 75% of their premiums to their patients.

Heritage Foundation tried to attack that by saying the the PER PATIENT costs are lower, but their reasoning is flawed because they do not take into account that medicade and medicare patients tend to already BE SICK BEOFRE they go on those plans.

Now if you compare those who actually USE either their private or public plans, you see that the public plans are wildly more efficient than the pribvate plans.

heritage foundation is really good at spinning what appears to the unwashed to be a serious economic argument.

That's because they're basically apologists for a system that is a proven failure.

 

[Cuyo]

Here is a basic economics 101 question.

What will happen if the government artificially keeps cost below market value?

Depends on how they do it, doesn't it?

If they do so by paying the lions share of the costs for the consumers then the price of it will continue to escalate.

If they impose price freezes there will be less HC available.

What if they do so by increased efficiency, lower overhead, and getting people help when they have minor issues, rather than letting them balloon?

 

[Intense]

Here is a basic economics 101 question.

What will happen if the government artificially keeps cost below market value?

Depends on how they do it, doesn't it?

If they do so by paying the lions share of the costs for the consumers then the price of it will continue to escalate.

If they impose price freezes there will be less HC available.

What if they do so by increased efficiency, lower overhead, and getting people help when they have minor issues, rather than letting them balloon?

What if They did it by closing the Borders! LOL! WTFU!

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yanks? Are you British Grump? Guess whose asses we saved during the war? I don't care if you give me more negative REPS about it, just keep your Euro-trash nose out of America's business.

No, I'm not British, Moron. But I'm not a Yank either. I'll put my nose where I damn well please...

...unless you can take your own advice and keep your Neocon Whackjob nose out of the rest of the world's business...doubtful I know...In which case, STFU, Loser....

Well!!!! I know where you can put your nose and lips Forest. If you're not an American, you don't have a say in how WE run things here. (Unless you're China and because we owe you $800 Billion thanks to Progressives and their spending habits.)

since a bunch of Americans here have commented on Grumps stomping grounds in past posts,without the good Doctor telling them to butt out of his countries business by the way,i think the Doctor can put his 2 cents in any time he see's a thread he wants to join in on........it is an INTERNATIONAL board we have here....

 

[WillowTree]

amusing how little twits from all over the world add their unsolicited two cents into the business of America and then become so outraged when Americans comment on their part of the world.. that's the DUmmie way alrighty..

Oh do shut up Willow....every time you open your trap the average IQ in this joint slides...

...maybe if America could mind its own business once and a while, you wouldn't get people commenting on yours....

hush with the outrage twit.

 

[rightwinger]

God IA I love when you wingnuts all use the word "WE", you certainly don't speak for me or a great portion of this nation! you really are one arrogant fuck aren't you

I think he was speaking about americans.

Well...maybe I was a little tough on the Kraut by mentioning "Heil Hitler" and all, but I don't recall them turning Adolph over to the Allies. We had to go in there and kick their butts first. Does anybody recall hearing the Germans saying "we're sorry" about that taking over half of Europe thing? I don't.

Anyway, we aren't over there telling the Germans how to run their government (except for a couple years after soundly kicking their asses back to Rhine) so they don't need to be telling us how to run our affairs here.

Odd sense of history...but considering the source, it is expected

Germany has repeatedly said "I'm sorry" for the war and they are one of our closest allies today.

As to WWII. It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans at great cost. They faced the bulk of the German Army while we mopped up the Western front. By the time the US finally landed at Normandy, the Soviets had already turned the tide

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I think he was speaking about americans.

Well...maybe I was a little tough on the Kraut by mentioning "Heil Hitler" and all, but I don't recall them turning Adolph over to the Allies. We had to go in there and kick their butts first. Does anybody recall hearing the Germans saying "we're sorry" about that taking over half of Europe thing? I don't.

Anyway, we aren't over there telling the Germans how to run their government (except for a couple years after soundly kicking their asses back to Rhine) so they don't need to be telling us how to run our affairs here.

Odd sense of history...but considering the source, it is expected

Germany has repeatedly said "I'm sorry" for the war and they are one of our closest allies today.

As to WWII. It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans at great cost. They faced the bulk of the German Army while we mopped up the Western front. By the time the US finally landed at Normandy, the Soviets had already turned the tide

Leave it to you to cheer for the Commies. I bet you think Reagan didn't win the Cold War, huh?

 

[rightwinger]

Well...maybe I was a little tough on the Kraut by mentioning "Heil Hitler" and all, but I don't recall them turning Adolph over to the Allies. We had to go in there and kick their butts first. Does anybody recall hearing the Germans saying "we're sorry" about that taking over half of Europe thing? I don't.

Anyway, we aren't over there telling the Germans how to run their government (except for a couple years after soundly kicking their asses back to Rhine) so they don't need to be telling us how to run our affairs here.

Odd sense of history...but considering the source, it is expected

Germany has repeatedly said "I'm sorry" for the war and they are one of our closest allies today.

As to WWII. It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans at great cost. They faced the bulk of the German Army while we mopped up the Western front. By the time the US finally landed at Normandy, the Soviets had already turned the tide

Leave it to you to cheer for the Commies. I bet you think Reagan didn't win the Cold War, huh?

The "Commies" defeated Hitler. Stalingrad in 1942, Kursk in 1943 broke the back of the German Army before we even hit Normandy.
History has already defined Reagans role

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Odd sense of history...but considering the source, it is expected

Germany has repeatedly said "I'm sorry" for the war and they are one of our closest allies today.

As to WWII. It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans at great cost. They faced the bulk of the German Army while we mopped up the Western front. By the time the US finally landed at Normandy, the Soviets had already turned the tide

Leave it to you to cheer for the Commies. I bet you think Reagan didn't win the Cold War, huh?

The "Commies" defeated Hitler. Stalingrad in 1942, Kursk in 1943 broke the back of the German Army before we even hit Normandy.
History has already defined Reagans role

Yeah...as the winner of the Cold War.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Leave it to you to cheer for the Commies. I bet you think Reagan didn't win the Cold War, huh?

The "Commies" defeated Hitler. Stalingrad in 1942, Kursk in 1943 broke the back of the German Army before we even hit Normandy.
History has already defined Reagans role

Yeah...as the winner of the Cold War.

i think you are not an average guy from iowa.

 

[editec]

Fix the VA and Medicare FIRST then come talking to us about "fixing" health care.

I'm use the VA system now, here in Maine.

EXCELLENT health care.

I am informed however, that the VA system is crap in some areas.

That's very disappointing news, but I trust the people whose told me this because I've heard it from so many of my fellow vets.

 

[Dr Grump]

Leave it to you to cheer for the Commies. I bet you think Reagan didn't win the Cold War, huh?

Finally, you are beginning to learn something...

 

[germanguy]

Outsider´s View

As a german, I sometimes do not understand the heat in your debate.
Man, what you already call socialism, would be the lowest standard of healthcare in a lot of industrializes countries.
Anyway, obviously a matter of perspective...

Living in a country, where a healthcare insurance is obligatory, I can tell you, that it is a myth, that any public or state owned system is non-profit orientated.
It is rather an accounting definition how you call a surplus.
In Germany the doctors use a very complex system to charge their costs to the public insurances. Every treatmeant has a point value, which represents a certain worth in EUR.
On the other side is the government fund, all public insurers get their money from.
Simple system: The more points you have via the doctors, the more money you get from the fund.
So, a simple reflux of stomach acid can either be what it is (not many points), or a more difficult thing can be diagnosed, which the doctor gets more points for.

The problem now is, that the government fund (the sum of all payments from the insured) is not limitless available.
Still, it is the interest of all public insurances to get as many points. They even start to train doctors how to "choose" the more lucrative diagnosis.

So, as I see it, you Americans should not think about if the state becomes to powerful, but who is getting his hands into the pot of gold.

As I do have a full-hearted trust in the greed of man, I think, that any system, be it private or public, will be a system, where people try to get a maximum of money out of - better known as profit.

Does competition make a difference ?
I do not think so.
Hands on heart, we all go to the doctr or a hospital, because we trust the one or distrust the other. Or we use a simple calculation of costs:
The best specialist is expensive, so the young doctor will do it.
Or I need a certain operation in case of need and then I just take the one who will save my life or my leg or whatever. Face it: Healthcare is not comparable to buying a car or a computer.
So, it all comes down to what we can afford. And in this regard I prefer a public system like here, where I do have access to specialists, without having to think about the costs.

regards
ze germanguy

Well...you can KEEP YOUR SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE because all you people know about is "Heil Hitler" and being under the subjugation of the State. We Americans are an independent lot who pull ourselves up by our boot straps. We don't need no stinkin' commune to live in. Our Hippies here have tried that already and it doesn't work because sooner or later the hardest working hippie gets tired of doing all the work while the others kick back.

May I just correct you in several things:

1. We do not greet each other with HH any more. If this is all you know about my country, you are a rather misinformed one.

2. As we are a republic and the healthcare plans here are not government run, the term socialized is rather misleading.

3. The Nazis used the term national-socialism to give morons like yourself the impression, that they were socialists. In fact they were bloodthirsty murderers.

4. The fundament of the german social insurances was laid by the biggest conservatives in German history. He clearly saw, that keeping the impoverished, the workers and the old alone will in the long term undermine any society.
I do not know what the best kind of healthcare system would be the best for your country.
But I personally think, that keeping a vast number out of any healthcare plan, while others get what money can buy is not the wisest of all politics.

But now I have to train my goosestep (funny actually a russian marching step) and being oppressed ...

kind regards
ze germanguy

 

[CMike]

Actually I am happy to hear the German guy's input.

 

[Mr Natural]

Hey Germanguy, you'll have to excuse my fellow countymen, for a lot of them tend to be morons.