Remind us again how Health Care will be voluntary

[Oddball]

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.

Let's compare this fantasy with the reality of what Medicare/Medcaid cost today, as opposed what they were projected to cost.

 

[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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The idea behind having a government plan is sound, if the government is not permitted to subsidize their plan with taxes. If the government plan was set up to run on its own and to compete directly with private insurers, then there should be no argument against it.

The biggest argument is that the government plan will be subsidized by taxes, making it impossible for private insurance companies to compete, and while I agree that we need some type of government plan to cover those who cannot currently get insurance, I understand why so many are against it. So keep it simple. Let the government plan compete directly with private plans but without any tax subsidies. Then if the government plan works better and is cheaper on its own, people will have a choice.

But here is the catch; all insurers would have to accept those with pre-existing conditions without charging higher premiums to those individuals. Since the goverenment plan would obviously take on those individuals, so too would the private insurers. Otherwise, the private insurers would continue to reject anyone with a pre-existing condition and all those people would be forced onto the government plan, making the goverenment plan much more expensive to operate.

If the government plan receives no subsidies, I have no particular objection to it, but I also don't see the point to it. If it is to compete for customers against private insurance companies, its costs will be similar and therefore its premiums will be similar. Although in absolute terms, health insurance companies' profits appear to be quite large, as a percentage of revenues, they are really quite low, so the elimination of profits will not make much difference it the government plan's costs. The most realistic hope is that by eliminating profits the government plan might for private plans to lower premiums by as much as 3%, but while welcome that would have little effect on the larger problems the health insurance overhaul is supposed to address. Additionally, if private insurance companies respond by greatly increasing advertising and other marketing costs, it could be that premiums will go up for both the government plan and for private plans.

While Obama continues to claim that a government plan is essential to combating the problems of our present health insurance system, the only reason he has been able to provide in support of this claim is that the government plan will keep private plans "honest". What does this mean? Is Obama saying private insurance companies are cheating their customers and the government plan won't? If this is so, why isn't Obama's Justice Department prosecuting the executives - apparently nearly all of them if this problem is so large as to require a government plan as the only possible solution - and suing the companies? The truth is that this is a slogan, not an explanation of his claim that a government plan is necessary to effectively address the larger problems with our health insurance coverage. It appears Obama's push for a public plan is motivated entirely by ideological and political considerations and has no basis in any real expectation this plan will bring any real benefits to the American people.

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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage - Yahoo! News

So much for voluntary.

Along this line, saw this article the other week and while its intent is sound, it sure makes me wonder if uncle will be mandating how much we have to exercise and what we can or can't eat.

Op-Ed Contributor: Shifting America from sick care to genuine wellness - Yahoo! News

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You missed the thread, I believe last year or earlier this year where Editec said the Federal Government should seize every thing even remotely related to the health Care industry and Nationalize it all to control costs. He denies it now, but he said it and he KNOWS he said.

 

[Meister]

If this plan leads to the death of the insurance companies, I'm all for it.
If it simple subsidizes the system we have now, it is a mistake.

A single payer plan is the best and most efficient system.

Your really showing just how ignorant you really are Chris.

 

[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.

You missed the thread, I believe last year or earlier this year where Editec said the Federal Government should seize every thing even remotely related to the health Care industry and Nationalize it all to control costs. He denies it now, but he said it and he KNOWS he said.

That may be, but for him to defend chris?

 

[elvis]

If this plan leads to the death of the insurance companies, I'm all for it.
If it simple subsidizes the system we have now, it is a mistake.

A single payer plan is the best and most efficient system.

Your really showing just how ignorant you really are Chris.

Yeah didn't Hillary try to tell the insurance companies what to do back in 93-94? didn't work for her, did it?

 

[Meister]

If this plan leads to the death of the insurance companies, I'm all for it.
If it simple subsidizes the system we have now, it is a mistake.

A single payer plan is the best and most efficient system.

Your really showing just how ignorant you really are Chris.

Yeah didn't Hillary try to tell the insurance companies what to do back in 93-94? didn't work for her, did it?

No it didn't....but chris's memory is very selective...so... I doubt anything will have impact on the twit

 

[Oddball]

If this plan leads to the death of the insurance companies, I'm all for it.
If it simple subsidizes the system we have now, it is a mistake.

A single payer plan is the best and most efficient system.

Your really showing just how ignorant you really are Chris.

Yeah didn't Hillary try to tell the insurance companies what to do back in 93-94? didn't work for her, did it?

Then there was this gem, when told the plan could bankrupt small businesses:

"I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America."

 

[Care4all]

If the government plan receives no subsidies, I have no particular objection to it, but I also don't see the point to it. If it is to compete for customers against private insurance companies, its costs will be similar and therefore its premiums will be similar. Although in absolute terms, health insurance companies' profits appear to be quite large, as a percentage of revenues, they are really quite low, so the elimination of profits will not make much difference it the government plan's costs. The most realistic hope is that by eliminating profits the government plan might for private plans to lower premiums by as much as 3%, but while welcome that would have little effect on the larger problems the health insurance overhaul is supposed to address. Additionally, if private insurance companies respond by greatly increasing advertising and other marketing costs, it could be that premiums will go up for both the government plan and for private plans.

While Obama continues to claim that a government plan is essential to combating the problems of our present health insurance system, the only reason he has been able to provide in support of this claim is that the government plan will keep private plans "honest". What does this mean? Is Obama saying private insurance companies are cheating their customers and the government plan won't? If this is so, why isn't Obama's Justice Department prosecuting the executives - apparently nearly all of them if this problem is so large as to require a government plan as the only possible solution - and suing the companies? The truth is that this is a slogan, not an explanation of his claim that a government plan is necessary to effectively address the larger problems with our health insurance coverage. It appears Obama's push for a public plan is motivated entirely by ideological and political considerations and has no basis in any real expectation this plan will bring any real benefits to the American people.

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.

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.

 

[Oddball]

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

 

[jeffrockit]

If this plan leads to the death of the insurance companies, I'm all for it.

If it simple subsidizes the system we have now, it is a mistake.

A single payer plan is the best and most efficient system.

So ... you are all for giving all the power over your life to one entity without choice ...


... and paying more than five times what you do now, just in taxes instead of directly.

Sorry, honey, get your facts straight.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because our system is incredible inefficient and greedy. It is based on making money off of sick people, NOT keeping people healthy. How perverse is that?

You really need to do some reading about the rest of the world. I suggest you start with this...

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, its working so well in Canada that private, for profit healthcare facilities are booming. Same thing in the UK. While we are trying to adopt their failed system, they are changing over to what the US has now. They have had years to work it out and it is failing.
Buying into the gov telling you its free is exactly what they want us to do and like good little sheep, most are following right along.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews

 

[Care4all]

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

haven't read your link yet but just by the title my head is spinning....this bailout is confusing as heck....

 

[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.

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.

You are confused. The insurance section of AIG was never in trouble; it was the financial services section that issued those guarantees on debt backed securities that got the company in trouble. As for premiums going up because of bad investments, that never happened. Insurance companies average costs over long periods of time, usually at least twenty years, so some bad investments may slightly lower average revenues over that period, but then good investments raise it again, so business cycles are accounted for and have no immediate effect on premiums. If the public plan invests its reserves in Treasuries, over time it will earn considerably less than private plans do, which is why no private insurance plans or pension plans put all their money in Treasuries. So while this will lower the plan's overhead, it will lower its revenues even more.

It is a certainty that private insurance companies will attempt to bury the public plan with aggressive marketing, and if the public plan doesn't invest in equally aggressive marketing, it probably will be buried.

 

[Chris]

If this plan leads to the death of the insurance companies, I'm all for it.

If it simple subsidizes the system we have now, it is a mistake.

A single payer plan is the best and most efficient system.

If you say so, there must be a reason that you say so. However, in every other economic endeavor, competition produces efficiency. Greater competition produces greater efficiency.

When a monopoy developes in the private sector, the government acts to "break it up". This is done to restore competition.

Why do you suppose that a monopoly run by people who have no motivation to restrain costs will be efficient?

The facts speak for themselves. Every other Western democracy uses a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and their outcomes are as good or better. Therefore, by definition a single payer system is more efficient. Why? They don't have to pay overhead for 150 insurance companies, liability lawyers, and they can negotiate drug costs as a unit with Big Pharma.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If this plan leads to the death of the insurance companies, I'm all for it.

If it simple subsidizes the system we have now, it is a mistake.

A single payer plan is the best and most efficient system.

If you say so, there must be a reason that you say so. However, in every other economic endeavor, competition produces efficiency. Greater competition produces greater efficiency.

When a monopoy developes in the private sector, the government acts to "break it up". This is done to restore competition.

Why do you suppose that a monopoly run by people who have no motivation to restrain costs will be efficient?

The facts speak for themselves. Every other Western democracy uses a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and their outcomes are as good or better. Therefore, by definition a single payer system is more efficient. Why? They don't have to pay overhead for 150 insurance companies, liability lawyers, and they can negotiate drug costs as a unit with Big Pharma.

In fact, most western democracies don't have a single payer system. France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Japan and others provide universal coverage through private insurance companies that negotiate coverage and premiums with the government. Single payer systems are less common.

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five countries: health care systems -- the four basic models | PBS

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Let's compare this fantasy with the reality of what Medicare/Medcaid cost today, as opposed what they were projected to cost.

Medicaid and Medicare have run over budget for the same exact reason that health insurance rates have more than doubled in the last decade. Why have the rates for private insurance gone up so much? They must be doing a terrible job to double our rates. How about the last thirty years? Their rates have doubled in real dollars.

Medicare is costing much more than expected because poeple are living longer than expected and the costs of healthcare have skyrocketed at the same time. So, basically you are saying the cost of private insurance was a fantasy also.

 

[auditor0007]

If the government plan receives no subsidies, I have no particular objection to it, but I also don't see the point to it. If it is to compete for customers against private insurance companies, its costs will be similar and therefore its premiums will be similar. Although in absolute terms, health insurance companies' profits appear to be quite large, as a percentage of revenues, they are really quite low, so the elimination of profits will not make much difference it the government plan's costs. The most realistic hope is that by eliminating profits the government plan might for private plans to lower premiums by as much as 3%, but while welcome that would have little effect on the larger problems the health insurance overhaul is supposed to address. Additionally, if private insurance companies respond by greatly increasing advertising and other marketing costs, it could be that premiums will go up for both the government plan and for private plans.

While Obama continues to claim that a government plan is essential to combating the problems of our present health insurance system, the only reason he has been able to provide in support of this claim is that the government plan will keep private plans "honest". What does this mean? Is Obama saying private insurance companies are cheating their customers and the government plan won't? If this is so, why isn't Obama's Justice Department prosecuting the executives - apparently nearly all of them if this problem is so large as to require a government plan as the only possible solution - and suing the companies? The truth is that this is a slogan, not an explanation of his claim that a government plan is necessary to effectively address the larger problems with our health insurance coverage. It appears Obama's push for a public plan is motivated entirely by ideological and political considerations and has no basis in any real expectation this plan will bring any real benefits to the American people.

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.

 

[editec]

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