"Which has nothing to do with public or private health care. There are just as many, if not more, "bureaucrats" in between you and your doctors in private health care than in public health care. That's why administrative costs for private health care are higher, not lower."
Wrong.
There are no bureaucrats standing between you and the doctor of your choice in the private system.
At the point where your chosen insurer declines your request, you may pay for same if you wish.
Which is
exactly the same as it is in Canada...
The implication re: ObamaCare is that, as in Canada, it will be illegal to purchase your own procedures.
As far as I know it is NOT illegal to pay for health care in Canada. Perhaps you have some information I do not?
I have provided figures on several other threads showing the opposite is in fact the case, and that in the US, the cost of publicly insured health care is in fact 15% cheaper than private alternatives, according to data from the Department of Health and Human services, perhaps you have some data that backs up the above assertion?
What?
But yet the British still spend half as much as we do per patient.
Makes sense in context...
you said:
To which I responded:
Clairvoyance being psychic abilities, usually to tell the future or read minds.
These numbers don't change the fact I pointed out. Health care keeps increasing at the same rate in total dollars, the percentages go down because the TOTAL keeps growing.
It is the cost of the education system which are spinning out of control, but since this system is a liberal bastion, it's control is not questioned.
Education makes up less than 1% of the budget. Teachers are all underpaid. Education costs are not "spinning out of control" in any way, shape or form.
Defense, on the other hand, is in fact spinning out of control, and has been for quite some time. But since defense is a conservative bastion, and provides lots of pork to Red states, it's "control is not questioned".
So, to review, it is your contention that ObamaCare, that does not increase the number of physicians, pays less for procedures, includes no tort reform, and has a board that will dictate what procedures and pharmaceutical are most 'efficient,' will result in
1. better quality care
2. without rationing care
3. without decreasing access
4. not diminish private insurance plans while adding dozens of mandates to policies
and
5. do these at lower costs.
Would that be your testimony? Remember, you are under oath.
1. The same or better, ON AVERAGE, yes.
2. Not more so than private health insurance does, if you're not rich
3. Not at all
4. Of course there will be some diminishing in the NUMBER of private plans, as the less efficient plans are phased out, and the more efficient ones take their place.
5. Yes, absolutely.
I. "In a decision that opens the door to more privatized health care, the Supreme Court has ruled 4–3 in favour of a Quebec patient and doctor who challenged the province's ban on private health insurance for medically necessary services.
The case involved Quebec doctor Jacques Chaoulli and his patient George Zeliotis. They argued that Zeliotis's year-long wait for a hip replacement in 1997 violated his right to life, liberty and security under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
At issue was whether the prohibition on private health insurance contained within Quebec's Health Insurance Act and Hospital Insurance Act were justifiable protections of the public health care system or whether they deprived individuals of a basic right. "
Supreme Court strikes ban on private health insurance -- Eggertson 173 (2): 139 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal
This from a 2005 Supreme Court decision which modifies the Canadian Healthcare Act ban on private insurance.
In six of the 10 provinces there are still restrictions.
II. "Advocates of a public plan assert that Medicare has administrative costs of 3 percent (or 6 to 8 percent if support from other government agencies is included), compared to 14 to 22 percent for private employer-sponsored health insurance (depending on which study is cited), or even more for individually purchased insurance. They attribute the difference to superior efficiency of government,[1] private insurance companies' expenditures on marketing,[2] efforts to deny claims,[3] unrestrained pursuit of profit,[4] and high executive salaries.[5]
However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare.
When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year (see Table 1). "
Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance
III. "Medicare patients are by definition elderly, disabled, or patients with end-stage renal disease, and as such have higher average patient care costs, so expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs gives a misleading picture of relative efficiency. Administrative costs are incurred primarily on a fixed or per-beneficiary basis; this approach spreads Medicare's costs over a larger base of patient care cost."
Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance
IV. 2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980
For purposes of comparison, education:
Tuition at private colleges and universities has increased anywhere from 5% to 13% every year since 1980. "
The Cost of a College Education
And for primary and secondary school:
"Based on statistics from the US Department of Education, the average cost of educating a student in elementary and secondary schools has risen from $6,200 in 1991 to $11,000 in 2005 an increase of 85%. "
US Education Market | Entourage Systems Inc.
"Education makes up less than 1% of the budget. Teachers are all underpaid. Education costs are not "spinning out of control" in any way, shape or form."
You are listing federal only. Judging by the results, you must be hallucinating to claim above. Clearly education costs are far outstripping healthcare- which actually works.
V. Your answers put you in the category of public school grad:
1. The same or better, ON AVERAGE, yes.
2. Not more so than private health insurance does, if you're not rich
3. Not at all
4. Of course there will be some diminishing in the NUMBER of private plans, as the less efficient plans are phased out, and the more efficient ones take their place.
5. Yes, absolutely.[/QUOTE]
Quality of care would be better with more patients but same number of doctors? The left's whipping boy is always the 'rich,' which I guess means your betters. Long waits means less access. Private plans are obiated in ObamaCare, contrary to what the President says, as you will be moved to a public option as soon as your plan increases premiums; this will be necessary due to multiple new mandates. Lower costs, as we have seen with Medicare.
Your answers are certainly not serious, nor truthful.
