We Need Government Healthcare Like Canada!

[Bo Didleysquat]

Right, and for profit corporations have caused our mess. So leaving the solution to them is a terrible idea.

No, they haven't. The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess, aided and abetted by fools like you who understand nothing but preach as if you know all.

I hope you are not trying to tell us that there is a free market in healthcare. When doctors and hospitals started accepting insurance, it was the beginning of the end of the free market in healthcare. However, those good old days when only those that could afford healthcare got it and the rest did without is gone forever.

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, they haven't. The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess, aided and abetted by fools like you who understand nothing but preach as if you know all.

I hope you are not trying to tell us that there is a free market in healthcare. When doctors and hospitals started accepting insurance, it was the beginning of the end of the free market in healthcare. However, those good old days when only those that could afford healthcare got it and the rest did without is gone forever.

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

**** you. Bail your own stupid ass out. Socialism fixes nothing and creates much worse problems. And I'm far more worried about lazy mooches like you trying to "profiteer" off of my taxes than I am about a doctor "profiteering" off of providing me useful services.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, they haven't. The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess, aided and abetted by fools like you who understand nothing but preach as if you know all.

I hope you are not trying to tell us that there is a free market in healthcare. When doctors and hospitals started accepting insurance, it was the beginning of the end of the free market in healthcare. However, those good old days when only those that could afford healthcare got it and the rest did without is gone forever.

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I hope you are not trying to tell us that there is a free market in healthcare. When doctors and hospitals started accepting insurance, it was the beginning of the end of the free market in healthcare. However, those good old days when only those that could afford healthcare got it and the rest did without is gone forever.

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

 

[Flopper]

Right, and for profit corporations have caused our mess. So leaving the solution to them is a terrible idea.

No, they haven't. The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess, aided and abetted by fools like you who understand nothing but preach as if you know all.

I hope you are not trying to tell us that there is a free market in healthcare. When doctors and hospitals started accepting insurance, it was the beginning of the end of the free market in healthcare. However, those good old days when only those that could afford healthcare got it and the rest did without is gone forever.

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

In the early 20th century, people avoided the hospital at all costs. Sick people preferred to receive medical care in their homes, tended by family members or paid nurses. Hospitals were places of last resort for the poor, migrant laborers, and travelers who had nowhere to rest or no family to care for them. Most healthcare was administered at home by family members. Most people never went to hospital. There simply was not any need for insurance. That of course began changing after WWII.

I agree government is responsible for a lot of the high cost of healthcare. The creation of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid spurred demand for health care services. That gave providers the ability to raise prices and create numerous new diagnostic tools and treatments. Legislation designed to lower cost raised it because all such legislation ended up creating more demand for more healthcare and that resulted in higher costs.

Government is certainly not the only reason cost increase. The more effective diagnosis and treatment of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, asthma has lead to a huge increase in medical cost over the last 60 years. Today, 85% of our healthcare dollars goes to treat chronic diseases. It's estimated that in 1960, chronic disease treatment accounted for only 10%. Today, the healthiest 50% only consume only 3% of the nation's health care costs. The sickest 5% of the population consume 50% of total healthcare dollars. Most of these patients are Medicare patients. The U.S. medical profession does a heroic job of saving their lives. But it comes at a very high cost. One could say most of these costs could have been avoid it the government had not passed the Medicare and Medicaid bill. However, that would have come at a very high cost in human lives.

See for Yourself If Obamacare Increased Health Care Costs

 

[Flopper]

simple wa

I hope you are not trying to tell us that there is a free market in healthcare. When doctors and hospitals started accepting insurance, it was the beginning of the end of the free market in healthcare. However, those good old days when only those that could afford healthcare got it and the rest did without is gone forever.

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

simple wa

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

simple wa

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

simple wa

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

I worked for the USPS a long time ago. They have a concept called "needs of the service", as in "work schedules are subject to needs of the service". In practice, what that means is that if there are still customers already in line when it comes time for the Post Office to close up and the workers to go home, then the workers have to stay however long it takes to help all those customers . . . and get paid overtime for doing it.

Welcome to the government's idea of "efficiency".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

simple wa

"I hope you are not trying to tell me something that's the complete opposite of what you said, but which I'd much rather argue against than your actual words."

Tell you what, Flop. Go back, read my post, and either show me where I said we had a free market in healthcare, or address my actual words. Straw men aren't worth my time, which means you aren't worth my time while you're building them.

When you said, "The government meddling and trying to control the free market caused the mess,..." you were certainly implying a free market existed.

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

Maybe in some things, but not most. It's privately funded. The research money does go to colleges, but not really the private sector. That is unless you consider colleges as the private sector.

New drugs and devices are created by the private sector and self-funded via stock holders. Where government expense is added is when they require years and years of testing and research before giving them approval for a new drug or device.

Years ago I used to teach at a music store. One of my students worked at a company that produced bolts used for the space shuttle. So if a microwave oven needed 50 bolts, they had to have documentation and testing for each and every bolt. He told me the documentation was between 80 and 200 pages long. If there was one error in the documentation, they wouldn't just let you edit it. They wanted new documentation.

This was many years ago, and back then, each bolt sold for over $500.00 or more depending on the bolt. I asked him what was the difference between those bolts and the other ones they produced for companies? He told me no difference at all. The cost of the bolts were because of government, not because of production.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

simple wa

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

I worked for the USPS a long time ago. They have a concept called "needs of the service", as in "work schedules are subject to needs of the service". In practice, what that means is that if there are still customers already in line when it comes time for the Post Office to close up and the workers to go home, then the workers have to stay however long it takes to help all those customers . . . and get paid overtime for doing it.

Welcome to the government's idea of "efficiency".

I don't know if the post office is the worst or not, but at least ours is really bad over here. Currently I'm waiting on a package for the last couple of weeks. Granted it is from overseas, but I went to my tracking number that was sent to me through email. Early last week, they scheduled my package to be here last Monday. I still haven't received it.

Coronavirus? Maybe that has something to do with it, but at least tell me what's going on instead of making promises they can't keep. At the very least, send us literate mail carriers who can match the names and numbers on the mailbox to the letters.

 

[Cecilie1200]

simple wa

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

I worked for the USPS a long time ago. They have a concept called "needs of the service", as in "work schedules are subject to needs of the service". In practice, what that means is that if there are still customers already in line when it comes time for the Post Office to close up and the workers to go home, then the workers have to stay however long it takes to help all those customers . . . and get paid overtime for doing it.

Welcome to the government's idea of "efficiency".

I don't know if the post office is the worst or not, but at least ours is really bad over here. Currently I'm waiting on a package for the last couple of weeks. Granted it is from overseas, but I went to my tracking number that was sent to me through email. Early last week, they scheduled my package to be here last Monday. I still haven't received it.

Coronavirus? Maybe that has something to do with it, but at least tell me what's going on instead of making promises they can't keep. At the very least, send us literate mail carriers who can match the names and numbers on the mailbox to the letters.

Hate to break it to you, but when I worked there, most of my co-workers had at least a Bachelor's degree, and many of them had Master's. Plenty of time and money to take college courses, after all.

Problems like that are due to apathy, and a strict regimentation that encourages people not to think outside the box.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

I worked for the USPS a long time ago. They have a concept called "needs of the service", as in "work schedules are subject to needs of the service". In practice, what that means is that if there are still customers already in line when it comes time for the Post Office to close up and the workers to go home, then the workers have to stay however long it takes to help all those customers . . . and get paid overtime for doing it.

Welcome to the government's idea of "efficiency".

I don't know if the post office is the worst or not, but at least ours is really bad over here. Currently I'm waiting on a package for the last couple of weeks. Granted it is from overseas, but I went to my tracking number that was sent to me through email. Early last week, they scheduled my package to be here last Monday. I still haven't received it.

Coronavirus? Maybe that has something to do with it, but at least tell me what's going on instead of making promises they can't keep. At the very least, send us literate mail carriers who can match the names and numbers on the mailbox to the letters.

Hate to break it to you, but when I worked there, most of my co-workers had at least a Bachelor's degree, and many of them had Master's. Plenty of time and money to take college courses, after all.

Problems like that are due to apathy, and a strict regimentation that encourages people not to think outside the box.

The PO went from one extreme to another. Years ago, carriers used to brag about delivering mail, and going home for two or three hours to take a nap. They usually gave the carrier a route in the neighborhood they lived in.

These stories were everywhere at the time. The Republican House in the 90's heard of these stories and complaints, and suggested that the PO be privatized instead of the government running it. That sounded the alarm. It went from a nice cushy job to a slave driven job. Since that time, they constantly hounded their carriers to move faster and faster. They are always riding their workers. My tax preparer used to be a carrier, and so is my cousin and a friend I used to hang round with. My cousin told me of a story where the carrier was so mad, he left the building screaming at the supervisor, and dropped of a heart attack right at the door.

It was nearly impossible to get a job at the PO years ago. Now it's hard for them to find people to work there. So there is only so good of worker you're going to get under those conditions. It shouldn't be like it was years ago, but it shouldn't be like it is today. They need someplace in the middle.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

I worked for the USPS a long time ago. They have a concept called "needs of the service", as in "work schedules are subject to needs of the service". In practice, what that means is that if there are still customers already in line when it comes time for the Post Office to close up and the workers to go home, then the workers have to stay however long it takes to help all those customers . . . and get paid overtime for doing it.

Welcome to the government's idea of "efficiency".

I don't know if the post office is the worst or not, but at least ours is really bad over here. Currently I'm waiting on a package for the last couple of weeks. Granted it is from overseas, but I went to my tracking number that was sent to me through email. Early last week, they scheduled my package to be here last Monday. I still haven't received it.

Coronavirus? Maybe that has something to do with it, but at least tell me what's going on instead of making promises they can't keep. At the very least, send us literate mail carriers who can match the names and numbers on the mailbox to the letters.

Hate to break it to you, but when I worked there, most of my co-workers had at least a Bachelor's degree, and many of them had Master's. Plenty of time and money to take college courses, after all.

Problems like that are due to apathy, and a strict regimentation that encourages people not to think outside the box.

The PO went from one extreme to another. Years ago, carriers used to brag about delivering mail, and going home for two or three hours to take a nap. They usually gave the carrier a route in the neighborhood they lived in.

These stories were everywhere at the time. The Republican House in the 90's heard of these stories and complaints, and suggested that the PO be privatized instead of the government running it. That sounded the alarm. It went from a nice cushy job to a slave driven job. Since that time, they constantly hounded their carriers to move faster and faster. They are always riding their workers. My tax preparer used to be a carrier, and so is my cousin and a friend I used to hang round with. My cousin told me of a story where the carrier was so mad, he left the building screaming at the supervisor, and dropped of a heart attack right at the door.

It was nearly impossible to get a job at the PO years ago. Now it's hard for them to find people to work there. So there is only so good of worker you're going to get under those conditions. It shouldn't be like it was years ago, but it shouldn't be like it is today. They need someplace in the middle.

Every post office I go into is staffed and operating just fine thanks.

 

[RealDave]

So you can wait 3 weeks after your general practitioner refers you to a specialist and 39 weeks for orthopedic surgery.

And Bloomberg says if you’re old, you can just die.

While Americans pine for 'Medicare for all,' Canadians look for US-style private insurance

I waited 6 weeks to see my ortho guy. Its 6 weeks out to see my general doc.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

I worked for the USPS a long time ago. They have a concept called "needs of the service", as in "work schedules are subject to needs of the service". In practice, what that means is that if there are still customers already in line when it comes time for the Post Office to close up and the workers to go home, then the workers have to stay however long it takes to help all those customers . . . and get paid overtime for doing it.

Welcome to the government's idea of "efficiency".

I don't know if the post office is the worst or not, but at least ours is really bad over here. Currently I'm waiting on a package for the last couple of weeks. Granted it is from overseas, but I went to my tracking number that was sent to me through email. Early last week, they scheduled my package to be here last Monday. I still haven't received it.

Coronavirus? Maybe that has something to do with it, but at least tell me what's going on instead of making promises they can't keep. At the very least, send us literate mail carriers who can match the names and numbers on the mailbox to the letters.

Hate to break it to you, but when I worked there, most of my co-workers had at least a Bachelor's degree, and many of them had Master's. Plenty of time and money to take college courses, after all.

Problems like that are due to apathy, and a strict regimentation that encourages people not to think outside the box.

Like some posters here attempt to sodomize.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, yeah. "Better health outcomes!

Correct. Across the board. Surely you understand if I defer to the WHO and its career scientists and doctors over some uneducated slob like you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills?

He said their overhead is lower. Because it is. This response by you is very stupid.

 

[Flopper]

simple wa

How exactly do you think people got medical care prior to the invention of modern health insurance, which only dates back to 1929 (and was invented by a private-sector contract between a group of teachers and Baylor Hospital in Dallas)?

Be that as it may, the government has inserted itself into health care every chance it can find and strangled any attempt to move toward a free market. So telling me that we have to have government interference because we have government interference is not a good argument.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

The profit motive does create life saving diagnostics and treatments. However, without government dollars to pay for them, most people will not be able to afford it. The profit motive is important in development of new treatments because the risks are high. However, if patients can't afford the the treatment, everyone loses. This is where goverment has step in.

**** the "free market". We bail it out with socialism. Profiteering has no place in healthcare.

Why not? Profiteering influences advancements and consumer satisfaction. Hand it to government, and you have an entity that could care less about the outcome. Can you name me one socialist program that isn't in trouble today, or predicted to be trouble tomorrow?

Exactly. I would far rather trust my health to a doctor's desire to make money than to the government's "altruism". Every damned time.

Because we are a lawsuit happy country, doctors pay big bucks for malpractice insurance. An even higher cost comes to consumers who have to endure defensive medicine by every doctor they see. Health insurance companies have the lowest profit margin of all other insurance companies, but profit is a bad thing, and we need government to remove profit from our healthcare system.

Private insurance overhead is way more expensive than Medicare. "Because we are …" is no excuse for anything.

You think Medicare doesn't have administrators? You think that Medicare doesn't process bills? If Medicare is so much cheaper, why does our government hire insurance companies to process Medicare and Medicaid claims? Do you ever see insurance companies asking Medicare for help because they can't run their business?

If you think insurance companies are making too much money on health insurance, then what's the next step, car insurance? Should government handle all our coverage for autos and trucks? What about renters insurance? Why doesn't government run that as well because it would bring down costs? House insurance? Life insurance?

I often tell my post office story when it comes to this subject. I was standing in a long line at the PO during Obama's first term. An elderly black lady in front of me said out loud "This is ridiculous. Why are they letting all of us stand here and they only have one postal worker behind the counter???" To that I replied "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run your healthcare." Oh did she turn around and give me a dirty look.....

When we talk about the high cost of processing claims, it is not the overhead of the insurance company that is the problem. It is the healthcare billing and claim processing system in the US which costs 495 billion dollars a year. Imagine a business whose payments for services is determined by who pays the bills. There are about 1200 insurance companies and several hundred government payers who each have their own set of rules as to what they will pay for each service and what is needed in order to successfully process each claim. In many cases there are multiple payers for a single claim; that is, there is a primary payer, a secondary, and then the patient. The result is that in some hospitals, the doctors and nurses who delivery patient care are out number by the people handling billing and claim processing.

The advantage of single payers is that there is one set of rules that apply to all claims. So the cost of a procedure is same for everyone. It's estimated that single payer would reduce the 495 billion a year in billing cost by about 200 to 250 billion. Hospital and doctor write-offs which are about 50 billion a year would largely disappear.