For those of you who think too much government spending goes to welfare...

[alan1]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Healthcare is part of welfare, that makes it 29%.
Last I looked that isn't what the founders and writers of the constitution saw as government responsibility.

Healthcare for govt workers is welfare?
The VA is welfare?

Are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest or do you believe that 18% is strictly VA and government employees?
I'm guessing it's the former.

 

[Meister]

Healthcare is part of welfare, that makes it 29%.
Last I looked that isn't what the founders and writers of the constitution saw as government responsibility.

There were a lot of things the founders did not consider a government responsibility

They were really not up on what was required to run a 21st century superpower

Seems to me that the people running the 21st century superpower are more off the mark than the founders. So are the people that can't add 18 and 11.

True, the FF's had the forsight to limit the federal government, something today's liberals wouldn't even consider.

 

[Billy000]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Yeah 11% is Way too much, it should be no more than 5%. with the difference going to health care and defense.

Who the hell are you to decide something like that? I seriously doubt you have any understanding of the what and why of government spending.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Yeah 11% is Way too much, it should be no more than 5%. with the difference going to health care and defense.

Who the hell are you to decide something like that? I seriously doubt you have any understanding of the what and why of government spending.

Didn't you start this thread because you thought that 11% was a good amount? What gives you more insight into the what and why of government spending then anyone else?

 

[P F Tinmore]

One of the benefits of a single-payer system is that it costs less.

A monopoly costs less? Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Then let's do it for cars, food and homes as well. Everything will cost less... won't it?

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=allQtB3sHVA]Elizabeth Kucinich describes HR 676 - Single Payer Healthcare - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

A monopoly costs less? Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Then let's do it for cars, food and homes as well. Everything will cost less... won't it?

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

Your last two reasons for single payer government health care are exactly why it will cost us more in the long run and not less.

It doesn't matter what the administrative costs are compared to the cost of never denying a claim and never denying coverage.

If you want to bring down medical costs, you have to subject medicine, not insurance, to market forces.

If you knew exactly what every service a Dr or hospital provides will cost then you can shop around for the best combination of price, quality and service just like you do for everything else.

That is a sure way to bring down medical costs

Are you saying that if a claim or coverage is denied that those costs will just go away?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

Your last two reasons for single payer government health care are exactly why it will cost us more in the long run and not less.

It doesn't matter what the administrative costs are compared to the cost of never denying a claim and never denying coverage.

If you want to bring down medical costs, you have to subject medicine, not insurance, to market forces.

If you knew exactly what every service a Dr or hospital provides will cost then you can shop around for the best combination of price, quality and service just like you do for everything else.

That is a sure way to bring down medical costs

I actually agree with you: if it were up to me, they'd have have to tell you what something cost before they did it, assuming you were conscious and not dying. There'd be a small, but not 0 co-pay for every single thing they did, there'd be a single payer who paid every claim, you could see any doctor you wanted, and people who tried to cheat the system would go to jail.

And if you wanted to pay for more than basic service, you could do that too.

The only thing you forgot is the incentive to shop around. If you know the cost but also know that everything no matter how expensive will be paid for there is no incentive to find the best value.

People should be submitting their own insurance claims as well. The average doctors' office needs to hire non medical staff just to handle insurance billing. We could all easily send an invoice to our own insurance companies thereby reducing even further the overhead and cost associated with medical services.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

Your last two reasons for single payer government health care are exactly why it will cost us more in the long run and not less.

It doesn't matter what the administrative costs are compared to the cost of never denying a claim and never denying coverage.

If you want to bring down medical costs, you have to subject medicine, not insurance, to market forces.

If you knew exactly what every service a Dr or hospital provides will cost then you can shop around for the best combination of price, quality and service just like you do for everything else.

That is a sure way to bring down medical costs

Are you saying that if a claim or coverage is denied that those costs will just go away?

They won't go away but they won't be as high.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Yeah 11% is Way too much, it should be no more than 5%. with the difference going to health care and defense.

Who the hell are you to decide something like that? I seriously doubt you have any understanding of the what and why of government spending.

I am an american citizen like you. Under your mindset you would have no right to argue if I said it was too little or too much.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Your last two reasons for single payer government health care are exactly why it will cost us more in the long run and not less.

It doesn't matter what the administrative costs are compared to the cost of never denying a claim and never denying coverage.

If you want to bring down medical costs, you have to subject medicine, not insurance, to market forces.

If you knew exactly what every service a Dr or hospital provides will cost then you can shop around for the best combination of price, quality and service just like you do for everything else.

That is a sure way to bring down medical costs

Are you saying that if a claim or coverage is denied that those costs will just go away?

They won't go away but they won't be as high.

That may be true in a market system but we have a mixed system. One group of people have insurance, do not pay the bill, and therefore have little concern for the cost. Those without insurance are simply out of the market.

 

[Sundial]

A monopoly costs less? Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Then let's do it for cars, food and homes as well. Everything will cost less... won't it?

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

Some small problem with your 'facts'.

1. Medicare has lower administration costs, because they can just increase taxes to cover shortfalls that always come up. Corporations cannot. They must budget and plan safely for good times and bad as well as make themselves profitable for investors to give them stability and financial health when things turn bad. Gubmint? SHit no. they just raise your taxes and say 'whattaya gonna do about it? Go to jail for not paying taxes?'

2. Medicare both denies MORE claims than private insurance and only pays a fraction of the true costs, thereby making the medical practitioners poorer, effectively stealing services and resources from them by refusing to pay their costs. This in turn requires the providers to inflate costs to make sure that they get a survivable sum of money from the skinflints at the government OR ration how many people come from these government programs. This cuts either the pool available to people to use, or the practitioners able to provide because they have rationed or gone out of business. This is not a viable answer or solution.

3. And if they are dropped for using their coverage, the insurance agency can be sued. Can you sue the government when they drop you? Short answer no. Long answer, you still can't sue the government but neither will they drop you. Instead a bureaucrat will administer what they will cover and if they don't like you, expect to get shittier treatment.

Someone in the private industry is ALWAYS willing to take high risk people IF THEY PAY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROFITABLE. The government just rations or increases taxes making the whole process unaffordable as they do not respond to market forces of scarcity, economy and efficiency. They don't have to because they can either print money, hide the loss in inflation or tax more and give the rest of the healthy people forced into the system a jolly '**** y'all'.

Moar? Shit, buddy. I'd like to see something that isn't hopelessly naive. As for the difference between medical services and a product? HAH! There is none. Everyone needs water, energy, food and medical among many other things. The beauty of a free market is that as a consumer, if I cannot receive the product or service that I need, I can fire your ass and find someone who will. Yes it may be more expensive, but it is what I NEED. You don't have a right to someone's labor, skill or resources because of your need. That's slavery. You must trade something of value from yourself for it. That is the free market, and just because it's medical does not make it any different from water, electricity, gasoline or apples.

So we can just drop this delusion right now, mmkay? I'm not playing ball with it.

Your arguments are pure bullshit. First of all, insurance companies raise their rates all the time. Second, if someone sues an insurance company for dropping them - and that's bullshit, too, but let's pretend for a movement - the only basis is going to be that the government is forcing them to cover somebody they don't want to cover. That's Obamacare. You're against that, right?

The whole point of Obamacare is that you can't be dropped. It's to prevent insurance companies from doing what is profitable: insuring healthy people and turning away the sick.

"IF THEY PAY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROFITABLE" WTF? Of course insurance companies will pay your cancer bills IF YOU MAKE IT PROFITABLE. I'll pay your bills if you make it profitable. What's wrong with you?

Tell you what. Get sick, lose your job, and then go MAKE IT PROFITABLE for an insurance company to cover you while you try to recover from lymphoma. Let me know how that goes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are you saying that if a claim or coverage is denied that those costs will just go away?

They won't go away but they won't be as high.

That may be true in a market system but we have a mixed system. One group of people have insurance, do not pay the bill, and therefore have little concern for the cost. Those without insurance are simply out of the market.

My point exactly.

We have to make medical services a market industry. It is the only way we as consumers can drive down costs

 

[Sundial]

I have never had an employer who did, but know that this is sometimes included in the compensation package some employers' offer. So long as the employer is using his/her own money there is no problem. He/she can plow the money back into the business, spend it on a great vacation, or use it for bonuses or raises or whatever, but it is the employers' money and he/she can use it for whatever he/she wishes including providing matching 401K contributions.

The problem comes in when a corporation--no sole proprietor would ever do that--keeps paying into a person's 401K after the person retires or otherwise leaves the company. That is the legacy of the modern union and has brought more than one big business to its knees. Such a plan is unsustainable and it should be illegal for the federal government to bail out any company who bankrupts itself in that way.

In the city, country, state, and federal government level, it should be illegal and, because it isn't illegal now, we have so many local, state, and the federal government in a state of bankruptcy with no good options left.

I think that in general... you are full of shit. You have proof to back up your assertions? I work for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and I contribute 6.3% of my gross to my retirement fund and the Commonwealth matches it. The kicker that you don't like is that the Commonwealth sends me a check till the day I die. Too ******* bad. That's how the Government gets people to work for them. Because often times, government pay is less than a similar private sector position.

Sure it's nice for you to get others to pay for your retirement until you diie. What you don't know or care about is that every dime the commonwealth pays you comes out of somebody else's pocket. And I imagine it comes out of a lot of pockets who could put that money to much better benefit to themselves or others rather than secure your retirement during which time you will be contributing little or nothing to the economy in return for that money.

Meanwhile more and more retirees are living longer meaning those still working have to dig deeper into their pockets to keep everybody in a comfortable retirement until that maxes out. Any increase in taxes would drive people from the Commonwealth reducing the tax base and exacerbating the shortfall. Which has happened in many states resulting in the bankruptcy of those states. As is true in all pyramid and Ponzi schemes, no system can survive indefintiely paying out money that nobody earned.

And frankly, I don't want anybody working in government who is working there only because of the retirement benefits.

What part of "your retirement plan is part of your pay" do you not understand?

Why is it when you see somebody has something you don't, you try to take it away from them? Better jobs have better benefits. That's just the way it is. Instead of complaining about what other people have, why not get a job with benefits yourself?

 

[Sundial]

There were a lot of things the founders did not consider a government responsibility

They were really not up on what was required to run a 21st century superpower

Seems to me that the people running the 21st century superpower are more off the mark than the founders. So are the people that can't add 18 and 11.

True, the FF's had the forsight to limit the federal government, something today's liberals wouldn't even consider.

You people have imaginary founding fathers that believe whatever you want them to believe. You actually have no idea.

 

[Sundial]

Your last two reasons for single payer government health care are exactly why it will cost us more in the long run and not less.

It doesn't matter what the administrative costs are compared to the cost of never denying a claim and never denying coverage.

If you want to bring down medical costs, you have to subject medicine, not insurance, to market forces.

If you knew exactly what every service a Dr or hospital provides will cost then you can shop around for the best combination of price, quality and service just like you do for everything else.

That is a sure way to bring down medical costs

I actually agree with you: if it were up to me, they'd have have to tell you what something cost before they did it, assuming you were conscious and not dying. There'd be a small, but not 0 co-pay for every single thing they did, there'd be a single payer who paid every claim, you could see any doctor you wanted, and people who tried to cheat the system would go to jail.

And if you wanted to pay for more than basic service, you could do that too.

The only thing you forgot is the incentive to shop around. If you know the cost but also know that everything no matter how expensive will be paid for there is no incentive to find the best value.

People should be submitting their own insurance claims as well. The average doctors' office needs to hire non medical staff just to handle insurance billing. We could all easily send an invoice to our own insurance companies thereby reducing even further the overhead and cost associated with medical services.

Medicare and private insurance companies have a set amount they pay for every service. They won't pay more. If a doctor wants to bill more, I'm fine with that, so long as he tells the patients up front, and they're willing to pay it.

Submitting insurance wouldn't be so difficult, except there are hundreds or thousands of different insurance companies, and they're constantly looking for ways to delay or deny claims. Submitting insurance doesn't NEED to be difficult. It could be done electronically, with payments coming automatically and immediately. It would save a lot of waste.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They won't go away but they won't be as high.

That may be true in a market system but we have a mixed system. One group of people have insurance, do not pay the bill, and therefore have little concern for the cost. Those without insurance are simply out of the market.

My point exactly.

We have to make medical services a market industry. It is the only way we as consumers can drive down costs

How do we make it a market industry so that can happen?

And those with little or no money, are those costs going to go away?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I actually agree with you: if it were up to me, they'd have have to tell you what something cost before they did it, assuming you were conscious and not dying. There'd be a small, but not 0 co-pay for every single thing they did, there'd be a single payer who paid every claim, you could see any doctor you wanted, and people who tried to cheat the system would go to jail.

And if you wanted to pay for more than basic service, you could do that too.

The only thing you forgot is the incentive to shop around. If you know the cost but also know that everything no matter how expensive will be paid for there is no incentive to find the best value.

People should be submitting their own insurance claims as well. The average doctors' office needs to hire non medical staff just to handle insurance billing. We could all easily send an invoice to our own insurance companies thereby reducing even further the overhead and cost associated with medical services.

Medicare and private insurance companies have a set amount they pay for every service. They won't pay more. If a doctor wants to bill more, I'm fine with that, so long as he tells the patients up front, and they're willing to pay it.

Submitting insurance wouldn't be so difficult, except there are hundreds or thousands of different insurance companies, and they're constantly looking for ways to delay or deny claims. Submitting insurance doesn't NEED to be difficult. It could be done electronically, with payments coming automatically and immediately. It would save a lot of waste.

That is true. Doctors need a staff of people on the payroll just to deal with insurance companies. That just drives cost up.

 

[Big Fitz]

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

Some small problem with your 'facts'.

1. Medicare has lower administration costs, because they can just increase taxes to cover shortfalls that always come up. Corporations cannot. They must budget and plan safely for good times and bad as well as make themselves profitable for investors to give them stability and financial health when things turn bad. Gubmint? SHit no. they just raise your taxes and say 'whattaya gonna do about it? Go to jail for not paying taxes?'

2. Medicare both denies MORE claims than private insurance and only pays a fraction of the true costs, thereby making the medical practitioners poorer, effectively stealing services and resources from them by refusing to pay their costs. This in turn requires the providers to inflate costs to make sure that they get a survivable sum of money from the skinflints at the government OR ration how many people come from these government programs. This cuts either the pool available to people to use, or the practitioners able to provide because they have rationed or gone out of business. This is not a viable answer or solution.

3. And if they are dropped for using their coverage, the insurance agency can be sued. Can you sue the government when they drop you? Short answer no. Long answer, you still can't sue the government but neither will they drop you. Instead a bureaucrat will administer what they will cover and if they don't like you, expect to get shittier treatment.

Someone in the private industry is ALWAYS willing to take high risk people IF THEY PAY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROFITABLE. The government just rations or increases taxes making the whole process unaffordable as they do not respond to market forces of scarcity, economy and efficiency. They don't have to because they can either print money, hide the loss in inflation or tax more and give the rest of the healthy people forced into the system a jolly '**** y'all'.

Moar? Shit, buddy. I'd like to see something that isn't hopelessly naive. As for the difference between medical services and a product? HAH! There is none. Everyone needs water, energy, food and medical among many other things. The beauty of a free market is that as a consumer, if I cannot receive the product or service that I need, I can fire your ass and find someone who will. Yes it may be more expensive, but it is what I NEED. You don't have a right to someone's labor, skill or resources because of your need. That's slavery. You must trade something of value from yourself for it. That is the free market, and just because it's medical does not make it any different from water, electricity, gasoline or apples.

So we can just drop this delusion right now, mmkay? I'm not playing ball with it.

Your arguments are pure bullshit. First of all, insurance companies raise their rates all the time. Second, if someone sues an insurance company for dropping them - and that's bullshit, too, but let's pretend for a movement - the only basis is going to be that the government is forcing them to cover somebody they don't want to cover. That's Obamacare. You're against that, right?

The whole point of Obamacare is that you can't be dropped. It's to prevent insurance companies from doing what is profitable: insuring healthy people and turning away the sick.

"IF THEY PAY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROFITABLE" WTF? Of course insurance companies will pay your cancer bills IF YOU MAKE IT PROFITABLE. I'll pay your bills if you make it profitable. What's wrong with you?

Tell you what. Get sick, lose your job, and then go MAKE IT PROFITABLE for an insurance company to cover you while you try to recover from lymphoma. Let me know how that goes.

Nope, sorry, you failed to overcome the entertainment threshold. Correcting your fallacies just does not generate enough interest for me to bother.

You call bullshit on me, I call 'whatever' on you.