Do Americans favor the creation of a public health insurance?

[AVG-JOE]

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?

Of course they do but the fine print in the government program is a helluva lot more legible and the people making the decisions in Medicare do not have a vested personal profit interest in denying a claim.

-Joe

 

[jreeves]

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

So the solution isn't to bankrupt this country and still have 37 million uninsured

 

[Dr Grump]

Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...

 

[editec]

Who cares what Americans favor?

This reliance some of you have on polls, as though the people polled understand what's going on is totally absurd.

American are so badly being jerked around by misinformation they don't know whether to shit or go blind.

Those opposed are being fed right wing talking points against a public option. Do some research other than right wing/insurance websites.

Do some research?

God, that's funny.

Yeah, okay, I'll do some research.

 

[editec]

YOu people who imagine that the solutions to the problem of escalating HC costs can be found in merely giving the problem to government or turning it entirely over to private industry are missing the big picture, I think.

The reason HC costs are escalating has very little to do with whether we use a socialistic solution or a market solution.

The conditions that are driving up costs will continue to plague us regardless of what solution we employ.

FYI the USA's expenditure for HC has risen to 18% of the GNP.

It has risen from about 5% of the GDP when I was a boy.

You folks who are young can expect to see HC rationing in your lives no matter what system we put together.

The market will ration HC with market forces, or the government will ration HC by fiat, but either way, rationing HC is in our future.

Get used to it.

 

[jreeves]

Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...

Yeah they really are like one another, except one has long lines and crappy medical equipment and will cost us an additional 1 to 2 trillion dollars..........

 

[Dr Grump]

Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...

Yeah they really are like one another, except one has long lines and crappy medical equipment and will cost us an additional 1 to 2 trillion dollars..........

Maybe that is the way it is in the US...

However, I'll say this - if you pay premiums or taxes what's the difference. I doubt if you have a serious heart operation that your premiums would cover it. So you are leeching off the other premium providers. Sucking from a different teet is still sucking from a teet...

 

[jreeves]

Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...

Yeah they really are like one another, except one has long lines and crappy medical equipment and will cost us an additional 1 to 2 trillion dollars..........

Maybe that is the way it is in the US...

However, I'll say this - if you pay premiums or taxes what's the difference. I doubt if you have a serious heart operation that your premiums would cover it. So you are leeching off the other premium providers. Sucking from a different teet is still sucking from a teet...

yep my 2 million dollar health care coverage probably wouldn't cover it.

 

[AVG-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

So the solution isn't to bankrupt this country and still have 37 million uninsured

In my humble opinion, part of the solution is to remove the profit motive from the tracking of premiums and payments from basic health care. I am politically active and I am pushing for change in that direction. Leaving things as they are is not an option, I am open to suggestions that make sense.

You?

 

[sealybobo]

Socialised medicine is a better prospect that what you have now. Both feed off each other. They're pretty similar if you sit down and think about it...

Yeah they really are like one another, except one has long lines and crappy medical equipment and will cost us an additional 1 to 2 trillion dollars..........

One way or the other, single payer costs less.

You guys say, "my taxes will go up", but you never admit that your costs will go down more in other areas.

Yes, if the government runs single payer, you will pay more to the government, but less to the for profits healthcare ceo's who make more the more they deny you. So what?

And the doctors are still for profit. The majority of them want this and 75% of us want it. But the insurance providers and lobbyists can stop it, even though so many of us want it. Because they can squash any reform they want.

And it might not be so easy for them if they didn't have house slaves like you out there fighting for them.

 

[Yukon]

The question of whether Americans want a socialized medicare system would be better put to a man who needs an operation and has no insurance. Ask the question then and I guarantee the answer will be a 100% YES to socialized medicare.

It is easy to sit back when you are healthy and ask the question.

 

[AVG-JOE]

YOu people who imagine that the solutions to the problem of escalating HC costs can be found in merely giving the problem to government or turning it entirely over to private industry are missing the big picture, I think.

The reason HC costs are escalating has very little to do with whether we use a socialistic solution or a market solution.

The conditions that are driving up costs will continue to plague us regardless of what solution we employ.

FYI the USA's expenditure for HC has risen to 18% of the GNP.

It has risen from about 5% of the GDP when I was a boy.

You folks who are young can expect to see HC rationing in your lives no matter what system we put together.

The market will ration HC with market forces, or the government will ration HC by fiat, but either way, rationing HC is in our future.

Get used to it.

Dude, the market already rations health care. Even with the private payment tracking bureaucracy my employer and I split the cost for now, I still can't see a doctor about a problem stemming from trauma that happened to me 20 years ago when my payments and premiums were being tracked by a different private bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, both private bureaucracies sport multiple executives with million dollar bonus plans, paid because they figured out ways to deny claims like mine.

It just doesn't make sense.

-Joe

 

[Political Junky]

YOu people who imagine that the solutions to the problem of escalating HC costs can be found in merely giving the problem to government or turning it entirely over to private industry are missing the big picture, I think.

The reason HC costs are escalating has very little to do with whether we use a socialistic solution or a market solution.

The conditions that are driving up costs will continue to plague us regardless of what solution we employ.

FYI the USA's expenditure for HC has risen to 18% of the GNP.

It has risen from about 5% of the GDP when I was a boy.

You folks who are young can expect to see HC rationing in your lives no matter what system we put together.

The market will ration HC with market forces, or the government will ration HC by fiat, but either way, rationing HC is in our future.

Get used to it.

Dude, the market already rations health care. Even with the private payment tracking bureaucracy my employer and I split the cost for now, I still can't see a doctor about a problem stemming from trauma that happened to me 20 years ago when my payments and premiums were being tracked by a different private bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, both private bureaucracies sport multiple executives with million dollar bonus plans, paid because they figured out ways to deny claims like mine.

It just doesn't make sense.

-Joe

Of course it's rationed by the bureaucrats in the private insurance companies...you're right. Those opposed to a public option conveniently overlook that.

 

[AVG-JOE]

YOu people who imagine that the solutions to the problem of escalating HC costs can be found in merely giving the problem to government or turning it entirely over to private industry are missing the big picture, I think.

The reason HC costs are escalating has very little to do with whether we use a socialistic solution or a market solution.

The conditions that are driving up costs will continue to plague us regardless of what solution we employ.

FYI the USA's expenditure for HC has risen to 18% of the GNP.

It has risen from about 5% of the GDP when I was a boy.

You folks who are young can expect to see HC rationing in your lives no matter what system we put together.

The market will ration HC with market forces, or the government will ration HC by fiat, but either way, rationing HC is in our future.

Get used to it.

Dude, the market already rations health care. Even with the private payment tracking bureaucracy my employer and I split the cost for now, I still can't see a doctor about a problem stemming from trauma that happened to me 20 years ago when my payments and premiums were being tracked by a different private bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, both private bureaucracies sport multiple executives with million dollar bonus plans, paid because they figured out ways to deny claims like mine.

It just doesn't make sense.

-Joe

Of course it's rationed by the bureaucrats in the private insurance companies...you're right. Those opposed to a public option conveniently overlook that.

We need to look at the reasons why the rationing occurs in either bureaucracy:

> Public bureaucrats ration because a claim does not meet specific criteria established by congress.​

> Private bureaucrats ration because they can enhance their paycheck if they are successful in denying claims.​

-Joe

 

[sealybobo]

75% want single payer or a public plan. And Democrats have 60 seats once the corrupt Minnesota Supreme Court stops stalling and seats Franken.

But they are waiting for a recess that is coming up. Stall, stall, stall. Obstruct, repeat.

 

[AVG-JOE]

75% want single payer or a public plan. And Democrats have 60 seats once the corrupt Minnesota Supreme Court stops stalling and seats Franken.

But they are waiting for a recess that is coming up. Stall, stall, stall. Obstruct, repeat.

Watch your health-care dollars at work, lobbying congress to keep the private bureaucracies deep in the gravy train.

It's revolting.

-Joe

 

[Political Junky]

Dude, the market already rations health care. Even with the private payment tracking bureaucracy my employer and I split the cost for now, I still can't see a doctor about a problem stemming from trauma that happened to me 20 years ago when my payments and premiums were being tracked by a different private bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, both private bureaucracies sport multiple executives with million dollar bonus plans, paid because they figured out ways to deny claims like mine.

It just doesn't make sense.

-Joe

Of course it's rationed by the bureaucrats in the private insurance companies...you're right. Those opposed to a public option conveniently overlook that.

We need to look at the reasons why the rationing occurs in either bureaucracy:

> Public bureaucrats ration because a claim does not meet specific criteria established by congress.​

> Private bureaucrats ration because they can enhance their paycheck if they are successful in denying claims.​

-Joe

Well, in the private bureaucracy they ration in order to profit. It's all about profit, while their CEOs make $25,000,000.+ salaries and fly around on private jets.

 

[sealybobo]

75% want single payer or a public plan. And Democrats have 60 seats once the corrupt Minnesota Supreme Court stops stalling and seats Franken.

But they are waiting for a recess that is coming up. Stall, stall, stall. Obstruct, repeat.

Watch your health-care dollars at work, lobbying congress to keep the private bureaucracies deep in the gravy train.

It's revolting.

-Joe

And the right doesn't complain about those costs being passed on to consumers.

Healthcare lobbyists will still bribe our politicians, but instead of it being insurance lobbyists, it'll be lobbyists that represent the doctors.

Oh, and perscription drugs won't be covered with single payer, will it?

So the insurance companies can have that.

And if they start gouging us on that, as if they don't already, we'll socialize that too. And not just the losses, but the profits too.

 

[Yukon]

The question of whether Americans want a socialized medicare system would be better put to a man who needs an operation and has no insurance. Ask the question then and I guarantee the answer will be a 100% YES to socialized medicare.

It is easy to sit back when you are healthy and ask the question.

 

[oreo]

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.

Believe it. The administrative costs, ALL of them, including office space, wages, training, computers, heat, lights, the whole shit and shaboodle are less than 1 penny out of every tax dollar collected (just FICA taxes, mind you, not all taxes). The reason? SSA is managed and manned by professionals who are committed to excellence and willing to do the job for a reasonable wage.

SSA is the most efficiently run insurance program ever conceived. That's why the health insurance industry is lobbying so hard to keep their gravy train to themselves - they would fold under the competition.

SSA is solvent until 2035 - 2045 depending on what happens with the economy, and things are looking good for reform because starting in 1984 all newly hired members of congress were covered by SS, and civil service began being grandfathered out. As soon as the old timers like Kennedy are replaced by leadership hired after 1984, you will see Social Security reform cooking nicely on the front burner.

(insert your favorite Deity here) bless the USA!

-Joe

They have already come out with a statement that SS will be in default or serious trouble long before they anticipated.

Social security/Medicare--plus the management of Fannie/Freddie tells me how enept our government is at manageing anything.

I am an employer. Now imagine what you could have done with 12.6% of your gross wages- through-out your entire working years--invested in safe-secure government bonds--that pay out 4-6% returns? Compare that to what social security pays to you--about 1-1/2% & the difference is astronomical.