The Rubes Paid For A Repeal/Replacement, Huckster Trump Is Giving Them A Forgery

[The Derp]

These dipshits have willingly turned their very HEALTH over to the central government.Jesus Christ!

So, socialized medicine and socialized insurance are two different, mutually exclusive things. You can have socialized insurance and not socialized medicine. All our allies have some degree of that and it seems to work for them; they spend about half as much as we do as a % of GDP on health care and they get better outcomes!

 

[g5000]

Precisely my point!You should be able to pick up the phone and call any health insurance company in the country. You can't do that right now. In fact, the government has done everything it can to make you a hostage to your employer or the government.

No, the individual states have done that because, thanks to the 10th Amendment, each state regulates health insurance differently. There are states right now where you can buy plans from out of state...GA is one of those states.

There is not one state in our entire country from where you can call ANY health insurance company in the country you wish, like you can do for auto insurance.

And that is not the states' doing. That is the federal government's doing.

So if they're not profitable, if they're not doing anything to improve or enhance how your provider delivers health care to you, if they can keep as much as 20% of your premium for themselves, why are they necessary?

The average margin is 4 to 5 percent, dipshit.

Insurance companies then take that 4 percent and invest it.

Read their financial statements. You are being lied to by people who want to own your life.

 

[g5000]

These dipshits have willingly turned their very HEALTH over to the central government.Jesus Christ!

So, socialized medicine and socialized insurance are two different, mutually exclusive things. You can have socialized insurance and not socialized medicine. All our allies have some degree of that and it seems to work for them; they spend about half as much as we do as a % of GDP on health care and they get better outcomes!

They are taxed at least twice as much.

Socialized medicine and socialized insurance are a distinction without a difference.

 

[The Derp]

The more you concentrate power in the federal government, the easier you make it for someone to capture that power.!

So here's the problem with that line of thinking; we live in a centralized economy. You can sit at your computer in Seattle, order a product from Miami, pay for it with a credit card based in Wilmington, and have it shipped to you by a company from Houston. It is ridiculous to think in a globalized world, we shouldn't have a stronger central authority. That is the only way we can compete. Our country is like a centipede, and we need all 100 legs to move at the same time because our global competitors don't have that problem; they are bipedal and don't have to worry about 100 legs. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a time where communication was instantaneous, commerce routinely happens across state borders, and where you can board a plane in New York and end up in Los Angeles 5 hours later. We have to be realistic. Centralizing our government makes sense when our economy is centralized. For health care, do people in MA get a different kind of prostate cancer than people in TX? No. So why are we treating health care as if it's regional? That makes no sense.

It is completely insane to give your very health over to a central government

The only people saying that are those who are misrepresenting what liberals want with single-payer. A single payer, just like a private insurer, has nothing to do with health care delivery. All they do is administrate payments. There exists no benefit to you as a patient as to the entity that reimburses your provider other than cheaper costs via Medicare vs. Aetna (for example).

 

[bendog]

These dipshits have willingly turned their very HEALTH over to the central government.Jesus Christ!

So, socialized medicine and socialized insurance are two different, mutually exclusive things. You can have socialized insurance and not socialized medicine. All our allies have some degree of that and it seems to work for them; they spend about half as much as we do as a % of GDP on health care and they get better outcomes!

We already have elements of both socialized insurance and medicine. What your PRIVATE insurer will pay a doctor (or any provider) who treats you is based upon what the federal govt pays for medicare. That's why when we hear the term "medicare fix" it's govt code speak to "we passed a bogus bill to say we saved on Medicar, but now we have to put in more money for the doctors."

Medicaid providers are typically cut very close to the bone. G5000 predicts (correctly imo) that the Senate bill is a bit of bait and switch, because the Medicaid cuts to some extent are aimed at getting votes from budget hawks and those who don't want the gummit doing anything, but the moderates are being promised an under the table, later on, infusion of cash for Medicaid.

 

[The Derp]

There is not one state in our entire country from where you can call ANY health insurance company in the country you wish, like you can do for auto insurance.

Because they are two different things, regulated differently. One is a necessity, the other is not. You can live your life without a car, but you cannot live your life without health care.

And that is not the states' doing. That is the federal government's doing.

Each state regulating health insurance differently is the fault of the federal government? Whaaaaaaa?

The average margin is 4 to 5 percent, dipshit.

First of all, no need to be a dick. I am being civil in this conversation and I expect you to as well. We are all adults here, so let's act like it. Secondly, their margin may only be 4-5%, yet they keep as much as 20% of your premium for themselves. So if 4% of that 20% is going to profits, what's the other 16% going towards? As I stated before (and gave you the links), Medicare's administrative expenses are 1% of its budget, whereas Aetna's administrative expenses are 17% of its budget. So if Medicare can do it on 1%, why can't Aetna? The answer is corporate profits. So we are faced with a choice; do we preserve profits for private insurance companies, or do we provide universal coverage. Because you can't do both.

Read their financial statements. You are being lied to by people who want to own your life.

So, funny you say that because I actually posted the 2015 financial statement from Aetna right here. 17% of their budget goes to "Administration and General Expenses". That line item in HHS' Medicare Budget is just 1%.

 

[The Derp]

They are taxed at least twice as much.

Yet they spend less as a % of GDP than we do, and they live longer, healthier lives. You can't argue those facts. So they're getting bang for their buck because they have terrific outcomes.

Socialized medicine and socialized insurance are a distinction without a difference.

There's a huge difference and it's only there if you actually understand the role an insurer plays in health care. The role they play has nothing to do with delivery, it's purely administrative. So you aren't benefiting from improved or enhanced care from the provider, depending on what insurance plan you have. Health insurance is how health care is paid.

 

[The Derp]

What your PRIVATE insurer will pay a doctor (or any provider) who treats you is based upon what the federal govt pays for medicare. That's why when we hear the term "medicare fix" it's govt code speak to "we passed a bogus bill to say we saved on Medicar, but now we have to put in more money for the doctors."

Medicare itself is tragically under-funded. For a program whose all-in tax is just 2.9%, it does an amazing job of providing access to health care for the oldest and sickest of our population. There's no rule or law that says we can't increase the Medicare tax temporarily to cover reimbursements as Boomers move into retirement, then lower it as they die off. For Medicare to reimburse at higher rates, you have to fund the program more.

Medicaid providers are typically cut very close to the bone. G5000 predicts (correctly imo) that the Senate bill is a bit of bait and switch, because the Medicaid cuts to some extent are aimed at getting votes from budget hawks and those who don't want the gummit doing anything, but the moderates are being promised an under the table, later on, infusion of cash for Medicaid.

The Medicaid cuts are purely ideological. Paul Ryan even said so himself when he bragged about doing keg stands with Rich Lowry and dreaming up ways he can kill Medicaid.

 

[g5000]

There is not one state in our entire country from where you can call ANY health insurance company in the country you wish, like you can do for auto insurance.

Because they are two different things, regulated differently.

Once again, precisely my point.

One is a necessity, the other is not. You can live your life without a car, but you cannot live your life without health care.

So? They are both insurance!

And that is not the states' doing. That is the federal government's doing.

Each state regulating health insurance differently is the fault of the federal government? Whaaaaaaa?

You keep saying its the states' fault as if it is true. It isn't. The federal government is the body which is restricting the national insurance market. How the **** did you ever get the idea a state was capable of making a national market illegal?

The McCarran-Ferguson Act (a FEDERAL law) would have to be repealed to allow true national insurance where you could call ANY health insurance company in the country.

The average margin is 4 to 5 percent, dipshit.

First of all, no need to be a dick. I am being civil in this conversation and I expect you to as well. We are all adults here, so let's act like it. Secondly, their margin may only be 4-5%, yet they keep as much as 20% of your premium for themselves.

Wow. Now I know why you call yourself Derp. You clearly don't know what a margin is.

 

[The Derp]

So? They are both insurance!

And an apple and an orange are both fruit, would you say they're the same?

You keep saying its the states' fault as if it is true. It isn't. The federal government is the body which is restricting the national insurance market

No, it's not! There is no national insurance market because each state regulates insurance differently. That's not the fault of the federal government, it's the fault of the 10th Amendment. We can try to pass a national regulation of health insurance but the last time we did that, Conservatives lost their collective shits and spent the last 7 years screeching about it, while not doing the hard work of actually coming up with a replacement.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act (a FEDERAL law) would have to be repealed to allow true national insurance where you could call ANY health insurance company in the country.

First of all, there's no benefit to you as a patient if the government reimburses your provider or a private company does. It's not even a transaction you're a part of, so it shouldn't matter to you who reimburses your provider, just so long as they are reimbursed. Providers (hospitals in particular) have entire staffs or floors dedicated just to processing claims, whereas in most single payer nations that job is done by one person in one room. So right there is a huge administrative cost that we are bearing for the sake of privatizing the mechanism by which your provider is reimbursed? That makes no ******* sense, and is what needs to change.

Wow. Now I know why you call yourself Derp. You clearly don't know what a margin is.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. In order to achieve that 4-5% margin, what does an insurance company have to do? Raise premiums, increase deductibles and co-pays, and deny procedures. What I have yet to hear, is what benefit to patients there is by privatizing the process of reimbursement? The answer is that there is no benefit and tons of liabilities. Those liabilities include; higher administrative costs, restricted access, and claims denials.

 

[g5000]

So? They are both insurance!

And an apple and an orange are both fruit, would you say they're the same?

I would say they can be both regulated the same, hell yes! Insurance is insurance. You either allow it to be sold nationally, or you don't. And that was decided at the federal level.

A state does not have the power to forbid selling insurance nationally. If you stop and THINK for two seconds, this would be blazingly obvious to you.

SYou keep saying its the states' fault as if it is true. It isn't. The federal government is the body which is restricting the national insurance market

No, it's not! There is no national insurance market because each state regulates insurance differently.

This is flatly wrong. You have the cart before the horse. The FEDERAL government banned a national market in the McCarran-Ferguson Act. States regulating separately IS THE EFFECT, NOT THE CAUSE.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act (a FEDERAL law) would have to be repealed to allow true national insurance where you could call ANY health insurance company in the country.

First of all, there's no benefit to you as a patient if the government reimburses your provider or a private company does. It's not even a transaction you're a part of, so it shouldn't matter to you who reimburses your provider, just so long as they are reimbursed. Providers (hospitals in particular) have entire staffs or floors dedicated just to processing claims, whereas in most single payer nations that job is done by one person in one room. So right there is a huge administrative cost that we are bearing for the sake of privatizing the mechanism by which your provider is reimbursed? That makes no ******* sense, and is what needs to change.

The process works just fine with auto insurance. We have a whole constellation of auto insurance companies, and auto insurance costs have been coming down while the price of cars has been rising.

Clearly, the government's interference in the health insurance market is the cause of rising health insurance costs. It is not caused by the insurance companies.

Wow. Now I know why you call yourself Derp. You clearly don't know what a margin is.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. In order to achieve that 4-5% margin, what does an insurance company have to do? Raise premiums, increase deductibles and co-pays, and deny procedures.

Government insurance does the exact same thing. They raise taxes and premiums (instead of just premiums), increase deductibles and co-pays, and deny procedures.

What I have yet to hear, is what benefit to patients there is by privatizing the process of reimbursement? The answer is that there is no benefit and tons of liabilities. Those liabilities include; higher administrative costs, restricted access, and claims denials.

I have told you the benefits. Several times.

1) Competition. You have maximum bargaining leverage when you can hang up and call another company. This drives prices down.

2) You get to decide what your needs are, not your employer or the government.

 

[g5000]

McCarren-Ferguson healthcare antitrust exemption must go

What if I told you that there was a federal antitrust exception for health insurance? Are health insurance needs remarkable and rare? Aren’t death and illness things that each of us will inevitably face? These fall into the realm of inevitability. So why restrict markets and have government-sanctioned oligopolies in health insurance?

If you couldn’t come up with a reason, you are in good company. That is why I am joining ranks with Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) and Rep. Paul Gosar(R-Ariz.) in calling for a repeal of the obscure and ridiculous McCarran-Ferguson Antitrust Act of 1945. This act was a response to a Supreme Court decision addressing price gouging and monopolies and allowed states the ability to regulate the industry, which prevents real competition across state lines. It is the reason that even if you could shop for healthcare across state lines, it may not matter, as many plans and HMOs wouldn’t provide service outside of the areas they were purchased.

While health insurance isn’t a good or service like sneakers or your evening dining out options, it is indeed a commodity. Instead of a “want,” health insurance is a “need,” but the truth of free markets still applies. It is science. Supply and demand. Availability driving cost. Scarcity versus abundance. And this antitrust exception perpetuates scarcity, which any economist knows, drives up price. OK, then, the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson seems like common sense.

So why hasn’t it been done? I can think of one sad but logical reason. Money and special interests. The donations and lobbying efforts of entities like Humana and Cigna, Kaiser and Wellpoint are massive. The benefits to them of artificially restricted markets are easy to understand. President Obama co-opted Big Insurance by promising increasingly larger portions of the pie. As a result, Big Insurance got behind ObamaCare and sent their money to Democrats. Meanwhile our premiums and deductibles have skyrocketed, their bottom lines have remained stable and their market share has risen. This is a result of competition being forced out of a market rather than into it. It is the reason that today entire regions of our country face the reality of no choice in providers.