Nevada Proposes Slashing Medicaid Services
Yeah, there’s plenty for all in those government systems.
Nevada officials on Tuesday outlined drastic cuts to the state’s Medicaid program that include plans to ration adult diapers, eliminate denture and hearing-aid programs, and force personal care assistants to buy their own disposable gloves.
State lawmakers learned of the cuts at a committee hearing in which health officials said adult day care programs, vision services and outpatient programs for people with brain trauma would also be cut to slash $109 million from Medicaid costs.
At least they are looking at serious ways to fix their budget deficit.
That rationing talk about govt health care is just such nonsense… isn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0757 hrs
outpatient programs for people with brain trauma
In Wisconsin that’s called the (D) caucus.
Posted by dad29 on February 10, 2010 at 0804 hrs
Bill, there is rationing in health care today. There will always be rationing. The question is only how the rationing will be accomplished.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0857 hrs
No, the question is will the government be the sole arbiter of who gets care, and how much. Will a panel of bureaucrats, under force of law, be allowed to tell you that you will not receive health care. Most of the country understands that, free lunch, why don’t you?
No rationing is necessary. No rationing in inevitable. Those things are the result of the single payer plan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0920 hrs
What people like free lunch are doing is trying to redefine the word rationing.
Here’s what the dictionary has to say:
Main Entry: 2ration
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ra·tioned; ra·tion·ing \?ra-sh(?-)ni?, ?r?-\
Date: 18591 : to supply with or put on rations
2 a : to distribute as rations —often used with out b : to distribute equitably c : to use sparinglyTheir claim is that, because some people can’t afford health insurance, they’re rationed out of the system.
There are multiple logical fallacies the left is using in this “debate”. First, they equate health insurance with health care. They aren’t the same, and it’s a dishonest argument.
Second, they claim that people are being rationed out of the system currently because they are unable to afford insurance. The difference between this and having a government panel telling you that you’ll have to forgo treatment for something is this: Right now, *anyone* is free to work harder or smarter and make enough money to pay for whatever medical treatment they want. With what the liberals are proposing, that would no longer be true. It is a dishonest argument to say that people that, for whatever reason, are not taking advantage of opportunities for more money, or not prioritizing the money they do have towards health care are being rationed.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0932 hrs
No rationing is necessary. No rationing in inevitable. Those things are the result of the single payer plan.
Really, how is that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0935 hrs
GMan,
Health insurance companies tell medical providers that they cannot perform X, Y, or Z because they have decided that they will not cover it. Does that not make it rationing?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0951 hrs
Medicade is a Socialist system. It should be shut down and these old people who didn’t have the brains to save for their future medical care should be left to face the consequence of their decision. There is no free lunch and I refuse to have my tax dollars spent on these geezers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0956 hrs
@Free Lunch: Your health insurance providers tells your doctor what they can and can’t do? I rather doubt that. Perhaps they decide not to pay for a procedure, but that in no way implies that your doctor, or any doctor, in barred from providing the service.
There are always options in the free market. You could pay for it yourself. You could see another doctor who might be able to provide an alternative treatment, or better convince insurance of the need for the procedure or treatment. You could choose a new insurance provider. All options. The fact that the service is not provided for free does not mean it has been rationed.
Under single payer government care, that procedure is not allowed. Period. The panel says no, so you do not get treatment. No other doctor. No paying for it… the resources will not be allocating if that is what the panel decides. Rationing.
Obviously there are many ways that health insurance coverage could be improved. Paul Ryan had some outstanding free market solutions to include exchanges and inter-state purchasing. Too bad the single payer crowd has politicized the issue to the point that it’s the Obama way, or no way. Congressman Ryan’s bill was totally ignored by the Pelosi-Reid-Obama regime. People want change in medical care… effective change without rationing. People would love to have more insurance options and save a few bucks to boot. Hopefully, after this next election, real change for the better can be provided… change that the citizens will agree with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1034 hrs
Thank you TFG for explaining, more eloquently than I would have, what I was getting at.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1035 hrs
Is the real problem in Nevada the illegal alien problem that our poor now have to suffer for?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1040 hrs
Under single payer government care, that procedure is not allowed.
Really? Please point to examples. Please also tell me what share of people can afford a treatment that the insurance company refused to pay for.
The interstate purchase option is a way to gut consumer protection. Insurers sell all over the country today. If they aren’t selling in a particular state, it was a business decision. If you buy health insurance from a different state, will anything guarantee that the insurance company will ever pay a dime since they are not regulated by your state? Is there any reason to think that Nevada or Texas won’t decide to let insurance companies sell minimal coverage in other states that won’t pay any of your expenses? What good is an insurance policy that doesn’t cover anything?
Exchanges can be a good idea, and have been part of some bills. I don’t know what the current status is on those. We can accomplish exactly the same thing by mandating community rating. We can tell insurers that each region is a group and that they have to charge everyone in that region the same amount, the same way they charge everyone in a group the same amount. That used to work well for Blue Cross until other companies started to cherry-pick.
Single payer has been ignored as an option by the Democrats. I have no idea why you bother to attack it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1048 hrs
Exchanges and inter-state purchasing are in the bills passed by Congress.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1124 hrs
Obama care was all about getting us to single payer. Our congressional banking queen, Barney Frank, pretty much admitted that. The Democrats have been salivating for years about getting control of 1/5th of our economy. We bother to attack that idea because if the people are not vigilant it will be rammed down our throats… as it very nearly was.
This is not to mention that single payer already exists in the guise of Medicare. Medicare has every problem that Obama care would have given us. Rationing, cost over-runs, insolvency, panels of bureaucrats deciding who gets care and how much, fraud, waste, and a lack of responsiveness to the needs of the customer.
Your straw man (I love to throw liberal terms around) about non-regulation is just that. You don’t even know what Ryan’s plan was, yet you come out strongly against it. Very partisan of you. I’ll take the free market choices over the governments loving care.
Who can afford care? Anyone can. This is America. We make our own way here. Some get rich, some don’t. Some make good choices and some make bad choices. With a reasonable job and a Paul Ryan health care plan, anyone with the will to work would be covered quite well. Life is not fair… but that does not mean we should all be forced onto a subsistence level health care plan just so we can have company in our misery. We should not be settling for providing everyone with the lowest common denominator of care. Let’s shoot for the moon and give people an incentive to work hard and succeed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1136 hrs
So, TFG, you don’t care if people die because they cannot afford health care. You are free to hold that opinion, but I certainly would never endorse it.
Let’s see what happens in the election this fall if it becomes a referendum on Ryan’s plan to destroy Medicare.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1141 hrs
Ryan’s plan to destroy Medicare.
Medicaid
B A detailed analysis of the Medicaid proposal is beyond CBO’s long-term modeling
capabilities. Instead, as agreed with your staff, CBO analyzed a modification to the
proposal, namely that, beginning in 2011, Medicaid spending per beneficiary
would grow at a prescribed rate.1
The Tax Treatment of Health Insurance
B In 2011, the current tax exclusion for employment-based health insurance would
be replaced by a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance, either
through an employer or on an individual basis. The tax credit initially would be set
at $2,300 per adult and $1,700 per child, not to exceed $5,700 per tax-filing unit.
The amounts of the Medicare voucher, the subsidy for low-income Medicare beneficiaries,
the federal funding for Medicaid, and the tax credit for the purchase of health
insurance would all be indexed to grow at a rate halfway between the general inflation
rate, as measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), and
the rate of price inflation for medical care, as measured by the consumer price index
for medical care (CPI-M). Using that blended rate, CBO estimates that those
amounts would increase at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent for the next 75 years,
in comparison with the average annual growth rate of nearly 5 percent that CBO
expects for per capita national spending for health care under current law.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1215 hrs
Thank you to The Family Guy and GMan for the well written comments.
I love how the statists always come back with, “so you don’t care if someone dies because they don’t have insurance”. I do care, that’s why I do not object to medical care for those in need. Medical insurance is another issue. This government is doing everything it can to get to single payer. Even if that means bankrupting the current system in the process. How many people will die as a result of this?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1254 hrs
I assume TFG and Gman live in a state that has more than one insurance provider. I assume if diagnosed with a significant disease that your insurance provider is not willing to cover the procedure or meds your physician prescribes that they can then get “new” insurance from a company although you now have a diagnosis that prevents you from getting coverage from a new insurance company. I assume neither of you have paid $12,000 a year for over 10 years to have your insurance company not cover things like schizophrenia because it is not considered a disease…..I guess you have never been on the phone begging your insurance company to allow your 2 week old infant to stay in the hospital while receiving life saving meds for RSV because they have a graph that says after 3 days they need to be discharged, even though she is still blue and has double pneumonia.
Some of us have lots of life experience that says reform is needed. I work and I PAID for all that rationing and wished like hell I had all that money in my account and not the insurance company.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1358 hrs
Yes, Smeety, if you cut Medicare benefits dramatically as the CBO letter tells us the Ryan plan does, the deficit will decrease, but that is because the elderly will have to pay substantially more of their medical costs.
How does Ryan save money? According to the CBO letter you sent us to:
1. Raising the Medicare qualification age to 69 years 6 months.
2. Cutting benefits to current recipients.
3. Increasing the amount retirees will have to pay for medical coverage.
Costs would also go up for those who are forced out of the current Medicare system since Medicare, even with some waste, fraud and abuse, is more cost effective than any insurance company.
So, Ryan’s plan is to get rid of Medicare and replace it with a partially subsidized system that is run through insurance companies.
TerryN, why do you prefer to have your health care funding being done through an insurance company that costs you or your employer more than through a government system that is more efficient?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1401 hrs
Ah, so that is the Ryan Plan. Balancing budgets on the backs of poor seniors. I doubt that will go over very well with the Tea Party crowd.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1436 hrs
It sounds like you have had some bad breaks health wise, Mary. That is unfortunate. The bright side is that you did get the care, although at some cost to yourself. Had you been stuck in a single payer program, like Canada or England has, that denial would have meant an end to further care. You would not have the option to pay for it… there would simply have been no further care offered. That happens everyday in single payer countries… real rationing. People suffer and die from those denials by bureaucratic panels.
It is unfortunate that health care is not free, but all those doctors and nurses and medicine and equipment cost billions to train, research, produce and operate. I’d rather pay for great care than be denied any treatment at all. I believe that under the Republican plan, pre-existing conditions were not allowed as a reason for non-coverage under the state insurance exchange idea. Had his plan been implemented, you could simply have gone to business with an insurer that covered the needs you felt to be important. I like that idea… I choose, not a bureaucrat appointed by another bureaucrat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1446 hrs
Mary,
The real question I would ask you in response to your childish rant is:
Why do you care what I do if bad things happen to me? It’s not your responsibility. I don’t want it to be your responsibility. It is *my* responsibility, as an adult, to take care of myself and my family.
That said…I’ll honestly say that I do not care one whit about your ability to pay for your insurance. That’s your responsibility. Be a grown up and take care of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1449 hrs
Hey, GMan, a real Randroid would say that insurance is evil. It makes people soft. If they don’t have the money to pay for the doctor, too bad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1451 hrs
Good thing I’m not a Randroid then, huh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1455 hrs
FL,
I’d love to hear your ideas with regard to the looming SS and Medicare bankruptcy….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1455 hrs
Free Lunch - I prefer my health care in the hands of corporations that compete for my business. Under the current system that is not happening due to insurance being tied to employment, and government restrictions and litigation that drives up the cost. I have no faith that a government bureaucracy is capable of efficiency. There are many examples in this country alone to back that up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1544 hrs
Smeety,
I would get rid of payroll taxes and replace them with VAT, a type of sales tax. That would be used to fund old age, survivors, and disability payments, workers compensation, unemployment, family leave, and health care. I would expand what Medicare covers and provide every citizen and legal resident with coverage through this improved Medicare. I would not waste money running it through private insurance companies because they are less efficient than Medicare is.
Yes, taxes would be higher than today, because they would pay for more. For the vast majority of people, the higher taxes would be offset by higher pay since employers would not have to pay for insurance or payroll taxes.
People who want to start their own business would have less problem doing so because they would be insured and not have to worry about trying to find affordable insurance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1618 hrs
TerryN,
Can you name any insurance company that is as efficient as Medicare? As far as I am aware, there is not a single insurer in the United States that is as efficient as Medicare.
Why shouldn’t doctors be responsible to you if they hurt you through carelessness?
I agree that some restrictions should go. Let’s start by not requiring insurance companies to cover silly things like chiropractic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1625 hrs
Thanks TFG, you always write so well. My medical history is a long and sometimes ugly one. Sometimes I had insurance, sometimes early in life I made the decision not to carry it. (when you are dirt poor, doesn’t always pay to carry insurance….if I get hit by a bus, the hospital will patch me up, and I’d either get the bill negotiated down, or let them sue me, for the dollars I didn’t have.)
But government health care scares the *$(#*$#( out of me. Early in my life, they would force me to pay for a product, I didn’t want. And now with a family, they will cap the type of product I can have (or tax it to pay for someone elses product). And if I don’t like their product, I can’t shop it to someone else. How does that monopoly pricing work out in practice….(even in the private sector, single payer would be a trainwreck.)
Yet somehow we are to believe that government is going to run this this more efficiently. Our government, that pays bus drivers $160K a year, that has benefit costs that average more than twice the private sector. Where teaching students costs twice what it does in most private schools. Government doesn’t do ANYTHING efficiently.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1626 hrs
Free Lunch - I’m not in the business to rate health care providers efficiency so I can’t answer your question. I know the current system is a mess but I also know that if congress gets their way we’re headed for disaster.
Why should lawyers make millions suing insurance companies for things that are out of doctors control. John Edwards comes to mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1702 hrs
Under single payer government care, that procedure is not allowed. Period. The panel says no, so you do not get treatment. No other doctor. No paying for it… the resources will not be allocating if that is what the panel decides. Rationing.
That is a lie. Name one country with single payer that refuses to allow patients to pay for procedures that are not covered or to purchase supplemental insurance coverage.
Not only is it a lie, it is an idiotic lie, and it makes you look really stupid for writing it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1720 hrs
Pretty sure that, until recently at least, private healthcare was not legal in Canada. I don’t actually have time to double check that right now, but I *do* know that it’s been a fairly big deal that they’re allowing (with restrictions) private hospitals to *start* to operate there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1750 hrs
Of course what always gets brought up is that Canadians come here for health care, which is true for roughly 5%. On the other hand, 2.5% of Americans from the “greatest healthcare system in the world” go elsewhere as health care tourists because of the cost of these services here, and the number is growing.
So that knock of the Canadian system is becoming less relevant. Further, no matter what you conjure up about other systems people in those country do not go broke from health care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1816 hrs
Keith
I wasn’t “knocking” the Canadians. I was just answering a question.
But please, keep making assumptions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1819 hrs
TerryN,
You claim to know that a single payer system will be worse, yet you admit that you have no knowledge about it at all. Have you looked at the cost and effectiveness of programs in other countries?
I’m completely supportive of a no-fault medical harm reimbursement program that cuts the lawyers out of it completely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1847 hrs
I love the smell of moving goalposts in the morning…it smells like victory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1931 hrs
Free Lunch - Please show me where I admit I have no knowledge of a single payer system. Government bureaucracies are not as efficient as competitive commerce. There is also no innovation. I want the freedom to choose what’s best for my family.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1933 hrs
Government bureaucracies are not as efficient as competitive commerce.
So you claim, but Medicare pays out more than 95% of its costs in payments for actual services. No insurance company comes close.
What innovation do you expect from health insurers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1959 hrs
I have to laugh at Free Lunch.
$0.27 on the dollar for healthcare costs are what get paid by medicare…
That’s not efficient. That’s robbery, of you, me, and anyone else that actually pays to visit the doctor. They (doctors) raise rates because medicare doesn’t cover their costs.
Try again, idiot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2016 hrs
$0.27 on the dollar for healthcare costs are what get paid by medicare…
Please show your source to support your claim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2026 hrs
Is there any truth to the rumor going around the Bend at the moment that Ginny was fired from her hospital job because she was allegedly illegally looking up medical records of people who opposed her in the whole library fiasco?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2048 hrs
The interstate purchase option is a way to gut consumer protection. Insurers sell all over the country today. If they aren’t selling in a particular state, it was a business decision. If you buy health insurance from a different state, will anything guarantee that the insurance company will ever pay a dime since they are not regulated by your state? Is there any reason to think that Nevada or Texas won’t decide to let insurance companies sell minimal coverage in other states that won’t pay any of your expenses? What good is an insurance policy that doesn’t cover anything?
I’m sorry, but this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard… Why would you ever sign a policy (CONTRACT) that doesn’t cover the things you think you need. Sorry “Free Lunch” but contracts are binding across state lines, as regulated by the congress per Article 1 Section 8. I have dozens of contracts with product suppliers across state lines, and if they don’t provide I have just as much right to sue as if they were in Wisconsin.
The interstate purchase option is a way for me to avoid the insurance mandates of my state…. for instance suppose the state requires coverage of birth control pills…. Well, I am a man, and don’t need that coverage, why shouldn’t I be able to shop for a policy that doesn’t cover birth control pills?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2054 hrs
T
erryN, why do you prefer to have your health care funding being done through an insurance company that costs you or your employer more than through a government system that is more efficient?
I have provided links on this site in the past to FBI investigations that PROVE that Medicare is just as if not more inefficient than the privates…. EHHHHHHHHHHHH, please try again, maybe ask the DNC to re-fax the more recent talking points.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2058 hrs
Please show your source to support your claim.
Likewise.
Last October I spent three days in a Christian private hospital at my mothers deathbed. She came in with cardiac arrest. They literally cooled her body to near freezing to try and prevent brain damage. On the second day they slowly warmed her back to normal body temperature and took her off of the drugs that induced a coma to prevent her from becoming conscious. She literally came back to life and we spent a day together before she had difficulty breathing and her heart stopped again. She would look me in the eye, smile, and mouth the words “I love you”. Thanks to that innovation I got to say goodbye.
Thanks to her health insurance, which she and her husband worked to provide for themselves she lived to 89. I am confident this is not the way things work out when you turn your life over to any government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2059 hrs
On the other hand, 2.5% of Americans from the “greatest healthcare system in the world” go elsewhere as health care tourists because of the cost of these services here, and the number is growing.
Please provide citations….
I wonder how many of these people are seeking cheaper plastic surgery in Mexico or South America?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2101 hrs
They (doctors) raise rates because medicare doesn’t cover their costs.
As long as you are at it G, got any data to back that up?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2109 hrs
I know you won’t like it but it’s the best I’m willing to look for right now. Enjoy.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story/?id=5302678
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2126 hrs
stupid link didn’t work…
ah, there’s the problem…let’s try again:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302678
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2127 hrs
Ok, I need to get some sleep or something, but I think this will work now. Enough with the typos
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5326078&page=1
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2130 hrs
You obviously think that private insurance is so wonderful. Let’s see what happens when seniors wake up to Paul Ryan’s plan to replace Medicare with whacko vouchers. That will really take government’s hands of their Medicare.
The GOP better pray that word does not get out about Ryan’s Road to Perdition plan. Those rabid crowds at the townhall will turn on a dime when they come to the realization of who is trying to screw them.
Hint. It’s not liberals and the Democrats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2201 hrs
Gee, Gman, I have something better than that—http://tinyurl.com/ydmfvdq.
A recent Gallup Poll finds that up to 29% of Americans would consider traveling abroad for medical procedures such as heart bypass surgery, hip or knee replacement, plastic surgery, cancer diagnosis and treatment, or alternative medical care, even though all are routinely done in the United States.
Of course you totally jumped past the statement about the issue of the financial ruin caused by our health care system.
Why you insist on putting up with this mess is beyond many of us. Masochism?
We keep hearing the tired canard that “government can’t do anything right,” “government is corrupt,” yada, yada, yada.
Yeah, believed by your cult, but when people think this out rationality they readily recognize the baloney. It doesn’t make for a decent argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 2212 hrs
As a resident of Nevada, I think I can add something to the conversation.
First, this is just a preliminary proposal- probably won’t happen.
Second, unlike states like Wisconsn, we actually have to balance our budget and not use financial gimmicks or just ignore the problem.
At this point, even the democrats are not proposing any new taxes andright now, they are going along with cutting the budget.
They are also cutting budgets of every state agency- education is getting 10% and that will include massive layoffs and cuts in salary.
The state already has cut a lot of money out of Medicare.
Another poster asked about illegals and yes, they do affect our budget, local and State to the tue of $10’s of millions of dollars.
So, conclusion, Nevada is hurting big time and they are choosing to cut instead of tax. Good for them.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 0226 hrs
So why is this good Dan?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 0716 hrs
Descriptions like “good”, Keith, are irrelevant. The money to pay for such programs does not exist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 0720 hrs
GMan,
I take it that you know that your claim that “$0.27 on the dollar for healthcare costs are what get paid by medicare…” was wrong since you didn’t bother to try to back it up with a source.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 0802 hrs
G, as TFG likes to state, the truth is out there.
http://www.medpac.gov/about.cfm
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 0919 hrs
You know, for all of the crowing that Medicare is so efficient (not true) and effective(not even close), you folks are ignoring the simple economics of that program. Medicare is paid for by people who are not drawing from the system. The more people who are covered, the more people who are needed to pay in, or the higher rate that needs to be charged to the non-members who support the house of cards. That system, like social security, is failing. There are not enough workers to pay the costs and Medicare will soon be completely bankrupt. ( http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/ ) Yes, totally insolvent.
To extend such a system to everyone would require an enormous outlay of funds to be provided by workers. There is no magical pay increase under Obamacare (for want of a better term to describe an American single payer system). No savings for the individual. No lower costs at all ( Heh, the government will lower costs.. a silly idea. Ever seen a government agency that runs as efficiently and cost effectively as a WalMart? GovMart’s motto would not be “Save Money. Live Better”, it would be “Pay More, Die Younger”). More wages gone to taxes, less discretionary income, less consumer spending… sort of an eternal recession with workers placed in a position where getting ahead is not possible. The end result of all such government systems is either rationing, or higher taxes to pay for the growing behemoth. Make me think of the man-eating plant in Little Shop of Horrors… “Feed me Seymour, I’m sooooo HUNGRY”.
That does not even address other problems like unresponsiveness to the customer, bureaucratic stone-walling, and an inability to react to new technology or changing needs. Try the Post Office, or the DMV, or the VA, or the DNR, or any government agency. Are they looking out for you, or for themselves? Where do you get better service, UPS or the Post Office? If you don’t care for the products at Home Depot you can choose another store… not so if you need something from the government. C’mon folks… universal government health care is a laughable idea. If you have a Porsche and it needed new tires and a tune-up, would you run out and buy a 1991 Ford Escort, or would you fix the great car you have? Let’s improve the greatest health-care system in the world… our system… and make it better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 0950 hrs
I am so tired of hearing the USPS compared to UPS or FEDEX.
If I want to send a letter or simply pay a bill offline it costs me what, 44 cents.
Got any idea what the cheapest rate with FEDEX or UPS would be TFG?
By the way that 1991 Escort would probably cost less than 1 tire for the Porsche.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1005 hrs
By the way that 1991 Escort would probably cost less than 1 tire for the Porsche.
Not if the government was buying the tire.
If I want to send a letter or simply pay a bill offline it costs me what, 44 cents.Got any idea what the cheapest rate with FEDEX or UPS would be TFG?
Since the USPS has a statutory monopoly on mail delivery, that is rather a non comparable. I suspect that, were privatization legal, those companies would be able to provide excellent prices and good service. Let’s not forget, the USPS posted a loss of $4 billion last year. Guess who helped subsidize that 44 cent letter you mailed?
That is endemic of statutory government monopolies. They waste money, are ineffective, and wind up drowning in red ink.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1032 hrs
So why is this good Dan?
Why is it good that Nevada is trying to cut spending rather than raising taxes? Is that a serious question?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1115 hrs
I don’t just smell moving goal posts…. I can see them.
Attack, insult, attack, insult, attack, insult, dodge retort, attack, insult…..
What is whacko about a tax voucher to purchase private health insurance? We provide tax credits for DOZENS of other products in this country, hell, the left themselves seems to believe that the “cash for clunkers”, homebuyers, and energy efficiency tax credits were great successes…. Why is it ok in one arena, but not another?
Again I ask you liberals, why is it that when it comes to abortion the rally cry is “keep your laws off my body.” , but when it comes to COMPLETE HEALTHCARE it is “please, please get your laws all over my body.” ........ Contradiction? Nah, not possible when you have no standards.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1122 hrs
The efficiency of medicare numbers are based entirely on bad statistics. The numbers are a comparison of % of medical care dollars spent, as opposed to comparing them to total number of people insured, in which case the privates are vastly more efficient….
A good analogy:
“Imagine, for a moment, that Fred and Jane each have a credit card from a different bank. Fred charges $5,000 a month, and Jane charges $1,000 a month. Suppose it costs each bank $5 to produce and send a plastic credit card when the account is opened. That $5 “administrative cost” is a much lower percentage of Fred’s monthly charges than it is of Jane’s, but that does not mean Fred’s bank is more efficient. It is purely a mathematical artifact of Fred’s charging pattern, and it would be silly to compare the efficiency of bank operations on that basis. Yet that is how many analysts compare Medicare with private insurance.”What do the numbers look like on a “per insured basis”?
“When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year (see Table 1). This is despite the fact that private-sector “administrative” costs include state health insurance premium taxes of up to 4 percent (averaging around 2 percent, depending on the state)–an expense from which Medicare is exempt–as well as the cost of non-claim health care expenses, such as disease management and on-call nurse consultation services.”The source you ask? Well, the United States Census Bureau of course.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1131 hrs
Doug, could you please provide the link or the actual name of the document that you are using?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1149 hrs
Doesn’t Yahoo exist in your world, free? Or Bing? Google even, if you must. Could you please provide me with a link to explain why your answer to every opinion and topic is “provide me with a link”? If you think he is mistaken, then look it up yourself and present your data.
This why we need less government… just look at what dependence on others is doing to poor free lunch. That’s part of the whole liberal mindset that conservatives want to change… the idea that someone has to do everything for you instead of you helping yourself. Get on the road to recovery, look it up yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1218 hrs
By the way that 1991 Escort would probably cost less than 1 tire for the Porsche.
Not if the government was buying the tire.
So the tire costs less if the govt buys it?
Since the USPS has a statutory monopoly on mail delivery, that is rather a non comparable. I suspect that, were privatization legal, those companies would be able to provide excellent prices and good service.
Pure conjecture. You have never sent a letter using FEDEX or UPS?
Guess who helped subsidize that 44 cent letter you mailed?
Thank you.
The efficiency of medicare numbers are based entirely on bad statistics.
Got some better ones?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1249 hrs
n 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.
That’s interesting, considering that the subset of the population that is covered by Medicare is slightly different than the subset of the population that is covered by private sector insurance.
Recognizing that Medicare recipients use the health system much more than the average person insured by the private sector, you would expect their administrative costs to be MUCH higher, wouldn’t you?
Of course, if you just drink the Heritage Foundation kool aid straight up, no chaser, you probably don’t think about things like that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1249 hrs
So the tire costs less if the govt buys it?
Of course, the government would’ve been able to use it’s bulk buying power to get better deals on drugs if the republican congress hadn’t expressly forbidden it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1251 hrs
That is endemic of statutory government monopolies. They waste money, are ineffective, and wind up drowning in red ink.
So we should privatize law enforcement and fire protection as well?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1252 hrs
Given what the gov’t pays for a lot of things I don’t know how you can say they will be able to get it for less. If you have ever read a government procurement contract you know what I mean.
Parts I supply to industry cost me $10 - that same part, with all the specs and provisions the govt places on it costs me $220.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1258 hrs
What exactly is it about the nature of governments that makes them less efficient?
Once you figure out the answer to that question, you are well on your way to understanding why countries with universal coverage/single payer have such better outcomes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1306 hrs
Yes, the quote does exist. I can find what he copied, but it isn’t from the census bureau. That was why I asked for information.
Since CMS says in Table 4, Year 2008 (page 6 in the .pdf) that Health Services and Supplies paid in 2008 were similar between insurance companies and the Federal Government (783 to 774 billion) shouldn’t administrative costs be similar if insurers were efficient? Instead we find that insurer adminstrative costs were $92 billion compared with federal costs of $45.5 billion. Now it may be that insurers are competitive on a per capita basis, but for most people, prices are not capitated. For most people, the cost of care is the best predictor of the cost of paying for the care.
If you have any reason that explains why per capita is a useful benchmark, I would love to hear it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1351 hrs
Once you figure out the answer to that question, you are well on your way to understanding why countries with universal coverage/single payer have such better outcomes.
The health insurance my company provides is cheaper than the average cost of insurance in all of these countries (excluding the ones that provide service that is inherently worse), and provides significantly better coverage…..
Don’t let the numbers in the U.S. fool you. They are skewed by extremely top-heavy government plans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1359 hrs
Smeety,
The older people get, the more medical care they receive. It’s absurd to compare the cost of health care for healthy working Americans to the cost of health care of disabled and retired Americans the way you did.
Per capita health care costs in the USA are higher than anywhere else in the developed world. Why don’t you deal with that fact?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1403 hrs
The older people get, the more medical care they receive. It’s absurd to compare the cost of health care for healthy working Americans to the cost of health care of disabled and retired Americans the way you did.
My company doesn’t pay more for older employees; but that is a nice strawman.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1408 hrs
Per capita health care costs in the USA are higher than anywhere else in the developed world. Why don’t you deal with that fact?
Do you believe that the elderly in Hungary, Poland, & Spain receive equivalent care? I give you enough credit to know the answer to this is a resounding
No….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1411 hrs
I don’t know why any of us are wasting our time debating with people like smeety and the family guy who are willing to tell blatant lies and distort the evidence to support their indefensible position.
Have fun.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1424 hrs
dj,
I don’t know if it’s the baseless accusations, the ridiculous contention that our position is indefensible, or your lack of ability to have a discussion without insults, but
you make me laugh…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1439 hrs
My company doesn’t pay more for older employees
Even if you are the owner of the company you don’t know that. The bid from the insurance company is based on the size of the company, the experience from the prior year, the location of most employees, and the demographic mix of the employees. For certain groups, insurers are restricted in the way they do underwriting, but those groups are all more expensive per capita than equivalent insurance for a large company. The largest companies self-insure and along with every insurance company, they know that the older the employee the higher the average cost of health care for that employee.
Do you believe that the elderly in Hungary, Poland, & Spain receive equivalent care?
I wasn’t aware that you thought those were the only countries in the developed world. Still, by making a silly statement like that you show that you do understand that our health care system is the most expensive, but you probably don’t understand that it is not the best.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has a useful primer from last year about health care costs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1541 hrs
So the tire costs less if the govt buys it?
Obviously I meant the escort. Now try it again… perhaps it’ll make more sense to you. I’m guessing after the government finished over-regulating the Escort and adding in some earmarks, the Escort would be the size of a Freightliner and cost as much as an M-1 tank. It would also break down constantly and require a brand new bureaucracy to handle repairs and purchasing.
So we should privatize law enforcement and fire protection as well?
It’s already been done in some jurisdictions. Government does adequately well in providing defense, and public protective services (though not always). I suspect it’s the non-uniformed civilian masters that cause most of the waste, graft, and over-legislation. If we restrict government to those areas and postal delivery, I’d be quite happy with it’s size, scope, and expense.
Per capita health care costs in the USA are higher than anywhere else in the developed world. Why don’t you deal with that fact?
They are indeed. Some is the result of governmental intrusion, some is the result of a lack of competition in the health care market place, and some is the result of the US having a far higher quality and availability of care than most of the world. We provide fast and effective care here… we also provide much of the research capital for innovations that other countries simply do not make, nor care to provide for their recipients.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1559 hrs
Free lunch. Do you even read any of the posts, or just type “please provide a link”. Your questions get answered several times over and yet that is your response. I don’t believe it to be the case, but even if we were to agree that in your fantasy land that Medicare is “more efficient”. that is because the governement exempts itself from all the taxes and most of the rules they encumber the rest of the world with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1611 hrs
Still, by making a silly statement like that you show that you do understand that our health care system is the most expensive,
You are incorrect, sir. Please see post #72….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1627 hrs
... but you probably don’t understand that it is not the best.
What is the best health care for me is not for you, BHO, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to decide…. thank you very much…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1635 hrs
You are incorrect, sir. Please see post #72….
I did. I answered you. Your anecdote is meaningless. The facts are that costs of health care increase as people get older.
Smeety, I cannot stop you from going to a witch doctor, but that doesn’t make his care good. There are objective measures. The US does poorly.
Curt, I’ve read your claims. You don’t provide citations because you cannot. I don’t accept your wishful thinking as evidence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1700 hrs
I did. I answered you. Your anecdote is meaningless. The facts are that costs of health care increase as people get older.
Once again, this is incorrect. My family’s health care is cheaper than any country with service that is barely in the same category of U.S. coverage… and the services provided to the elderly is better than anywhere else in the world ...
Smeety, I cannot stop you from going to a witch doctor, but that doesn’t make his care good. There are objective measures. The US does poorly.
I would call the Massachusetts Senate race an objective measure…
Oh, BURN!!!!!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1715 hrs
Free Lunch.
I didn’t attach any citation, as it isn’t my job to do your research for you. But a dozen people along the way in this thread answered your questions with links and data, and yet your answer is always “where is the link”.
Maybe I’m simple minded. I’ve read so many posts on both sides. It certainly is important to consider the source of the link, as well as the credibility of the person linking. (which is why I’d probably never follow one from you) But in the end to me it comes to two points. (no citations needed)
Either you believe in free markets or you don’t. And to an extent, do you believe in freedom or not. I want to be free to choose what is best for my family. Every piece of our lives that we let the government dictate to us, is one more freedom, we’ve given up for convenience.
While I don’t trust government to run something this important efficiently, as they have’t run anything else well or efficiently, that is truly a secondary concern.
I don’t believe they can save us money, I think government care will be a horriblly expensive exercise. But even if it was cheaper, it isn’t worth losing one more piece of our freedom.
We lose a bit more every day. That freedom, and the energy and creativity that it inspired in generations of our forefathers is what made us a great nation.Take away another freedom, make us more dependent on the state, and we take one more step towards becoming the old USSR. Government runs everything. When you try to level the outcome for everyone, you guarantee that it won’t be an outcome anyone would want. When you enable us to strive for greatness (rather than punish it or redistribute the result to make it fair ) is when we shine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1900 hrs
Curt, feel free to make all the indefensible claims you like, but don’t expect me to believe you just because you claimed it. If you want me to accept your claim, then provide the evidence. If you don’t why would anyone believe you?
Smeety, learn something about the cost of health care. Your unsupported claims are as useless as Curt’s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1909 hrs
I know that my family’s private industry health insurance is cheaper and better than Britain’s socialized medicine.
And I know it is not your business or the business of Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Russ Feingold to direct me to socialized medicine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1932 hrs
Recognizing that Medicare recipients use the health system much more than the average person insured by the private sector, you would expect their administrative costs to be MUCH higher, wouldn’t you?
Of course, if you just drink the Heritage Foundation kool aid straight up, no chaser, you probably don’t think about things like that.
Why on Earth would you imagine that the administrative costs should be higher? Because you are trying to switch the argument back to the % of dollars spent as opposed to # of recipients…. Or are you admitting that Medicare is less efficient than the privates…..? The analogy stands.
“Imagine, for a moment, that Fred and Jane each have a credit card from a different bank. Fred charges $5,000 a month, and Jane charges $1,000 a month. Suppose it costs each bank $5 to produce and send a plastic credit card when the account is opened. That $5 “administrative cost” is a much lower percentage of Fred’s monthly charges than it is of Jane’s, but that does not mean Fred’s bank is more efficient. It is purely a mathematical artifact of Fred’s charging pattern, and it would be silly to compare the efficiency of bank operations on that basis. Yet that is how many analysts compare Medicare with private insurance.”
Bash Heritage all you want, but they get their numbers from the Census Bureau.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1932 hrs
Per capita healthcare costs are higher in this country precisely because:
1.) We have the most advanced, and therefore the most expensive care in the world.
2.) We have the most litigious society in the world, and therefore have doctors who are forced to do CYA testing and procedures whenever they can.
3.) Medicare shifts its costs to the private health insurance industry, which in turn raises premiums. Denial of this is abject moonbat, loony-toon territory.
4.) Medicare fraud is astounding…. likely as much as 15-20% of all medicare dollars are lost to fraud (per the FBI as I have posted and cited on this site before)
5.) State health insurance mandates require coverage of things that many people will never need, and because the mandates are inflexible (as is all government regulation) people are forced to pay [more] for coverage they don’t need.
6.) Our competitive non-profit hospital system requires every new hospital built to have every new piece of equipment and every possible labratory. Therefore our healthcare facilities are inherently more expensive.
7.) Our low-copay, low-deductible insurance system doesn’t require individual healthcare facilities to advertise the price of any particular procedure…. If I cut myself and it needs a couple stitches, lets say the total bill will be somewhere between $1000 and $1800 no matter which healthcare provider I go to ( I have three within equal distance from my house ). Thanks to our insurance system (low deductible) I have no incentive to go to the least expensive, I am incentivized to go to the provider that has the best amenities, aka flat screens, cable tv, etc….
You lefties can go on and on about the idealistic notion of allowing government to take care of us from the moment we are born to the moment we die, but I am right on this, and there are MILLIONS of Americans who know it. Good luck in the 2010 elections…..BTW. Can’t help but notice that the goal posts are still roaming the field…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1947 hrs
Curt, feel free to make all the indefensible claims you like, but don’t expect me to believe you just because you claimed it. If you want me to accept your claim, then provide the evidence. If you don’t why would anyone believe you?
His claims are not indefensible…. They are the feelings of MOST of America. We are not willing to give up more of our freedom for the “convenience” of government nannying.
Barack “the socialist” Obama has proven every conservative in this threads point… Liberalism is a loser in this country, sorry guys, but this President, and his congress have proven it/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1953 hrs
Why on Earth would you imagine that the administrative costs should be higher? Because you are trying to switch the argument back to the % of dollars spent as opposed to # of recipients…. Or are you admitting that Medicare is less efficient than the privates…..? The analogy stands.
I was done with this nonsense, but I had to get pulled in one last time because this comment illustrates the belligerent ignorance that lies at the root of the dishonest, disingenuous attacks on health care reform in this country.
You want to compare the administrative costs for Medicare and private insurance on a per-person basis. Ok. Let’s look at the average Medicare recipient. They are obviously going to be at least 60 years old.
Older people visit the doctor more. For every visit to the doctor there are going to be administrative costs.
Older people have more medical procedures. For every medical procedure, there are going to be administrative costs.
Older people have more prescriptions. For every prescription, , there are going to be administrative costs.
So yes, we should expect Medicare administrative expenses to be much higher than private insurers on a per capita basis. Even if it’s more efficient.
All of your arguments against liberal efforts at health care reform are based on lies and intentional misrepresentation of the data, just like your argument that I just refuted here is based on lies and intentional misrepresentation of the data.
What makes you so pathetic is that you don’t even realize that you are being played for suckers by the corporations whose interests you are putting ahead of your own. When in history have we seen a populist uprising dedicated to fighting for the interests of the same people who profit from their suffering. Marie Antoinette would be rofl-ing for sure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2022 hrs
What makes you so pathetic is that you don’t even realize that you are being played for suckers by the corporations whose interests you are putting ahead of your own. When in history have we seen a populist uprising dedicated to fighting for the interests of the same people who profit from their suffering. Marie Antoinette would be rofl-ing for sure.
Bah hahahahahahha….
Here we go again. Evil corporations, made up of evil employees, and evil shareholders (me, and you if you have a 401k).... All I can do is roll my eyes.Administrators are paid on a salary basis, they work a set number of hours a week, at a fixed cost each year. Stamping papers for doctor visits each time an old person or a young person goes in doesn’t cost more or less no matter how many times the person visits the doctor. Therefore the only way one system can have higher costs is by having more administrators per person. Is this out of necessity? not likely. Since you are the one always begging for citations, please, show me the numbers. Prove that medicare recipients use medical care more often than those privately insured….. Please..?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2036 hrs
Obviously I meant
If it is so damn obvious how did it get past a bright guy such as yourself? What is it 2 or 3 times?
That “prove me wrong” posture gets old after you actually get called out on some of your quarter baked and poorly articulated BS and pull a “Yes, I typed that but, I really meant this”.
Are you having trouble with your teleprompter?
Hey, everybody makes mistakes like typing a million instead of a billion but tire and escort aren’t even close.
Now if you have some sort of cognitive disorder or are blogging here as part of a writing assignment for an ESL course maybe you deserve the benefit of the doubt?
But that does not seem to be the case.
Question:
So we should privatize law enforcement and fire protection as well?
Answer:
Government does adequately well in providing defense, and public protective services (though not always). I suspect it’s the non-uniformed civilian masters that cause most of the waste, graft, and over-legislation. If we restrict government to those areas and postal delivery, I’d be quite happy with it’s size, scope, and expense.
Who might be the Government in this scenario, if not the non-uniformed civilian masters that you identify as the cause for most of the problems?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2039 hrs
Even if Medicare recipients use more medical resources, that is easily countered by the fact that there are far more people on private health insurance…. Nah, couldn’t be.
I am not being taken advantage of by anyone, because right now I am one of Americas several million uninsured…. Get this, because I can’t afford insurance right now. AND I STILL DON’T WANT GOVERNMENT CARE!!!!!
“Keep your laws off my body!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2041 hrs
I am not being taken advantage of by anyone, because right now I am one of Americas several million uninsured…. Get this, because I can’t afford insurance right now. AND I STILL DON’T WANT GOVERNMENT CARE!!!!!
What makes you so pathetic is that you don’t even realize that you are being played for suckers by the corporations whose interests you are putting ahead of your own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2044 hrs
What makes you so pathetic is that you so are so willing to give away what millions have fought and died to give you. Freedom from the tyranny of government control….
I have no feet in the game right now. My healthcare is my own responsibility, the way I prefer it. I refuse to be relegated to serfdom under the control of my congressional masters….. You are welcome to turn every manageable aspect of your life over to the philosopher kings, and pray for Kallipolis. I on the other hand will politely decline.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2052 hrs
I refuse to be relegated to serfdom under the control of my congressional masters
I hate to tell you this, but one slightly serious injury or illness and “serfdom” is an excellent description of the position you will find yourself. That is the whole point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2059 hrs
The government is not the only entity that can deprive you of your liberty. I wish you glibertarians could get that through your skulls.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2100 hrs
7.) Our low-copay, low-deductible insurance system doesn’t require individual healthcare facilities to advertise the price of any particular procedure…. If I cut myself and it needs a couple stitches, lets say the total bill will be somewhere between $1000 and $1800 no matter which healthcare provider I go to ( I have three within equal distance from my house ). Thanks to our insurance system (low deductible) I have no incentive to go to the least expensive, I am incentivized to go to the provider that has the best amenities, aka flat screens, cable tv, etc…
I am assuming you know this from past experience or hearsay,
I am not being taken advantage of by anyone, because right now I am one of Americas several million uninsured
So I will let you in on a little secret…shhh. The insurance companies have a new cost saving gimmick called networks and preferred providers and unless you go to a facility/provider that is preferred or networked you may pay a lot more in co-pays and/or deductibles if they cover it at all.
That’s how they help you make the choice?
Guess who they got that idea from?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2105 hrs
I hate to tell you this, but one slightly serious injury or illness and “serfdom” is an excellent description of the position you will find yourself. That is the whole point.
The whole point is that I don’t need you to tell me that. I can make these decisions for myself… I don’t need you, my neighbor, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Russ Feingold, Joe Blow, or Steve the plumber telling me that I have to buy insurance or not, or what needs to be covered by whatever policy I do buy…
I’m sorry that goes so far over your head.
The government is not the only entity that can deprive you of your liberty. I wish you glibertarians could get that through your skulls.
Glib? Really? You think that I am not worried about my family? I guess that is beside the point. I don’t need you or anyone else to worry about my affairs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2108 hrs
Furthermore, show me the constitutional provisions that allow for congress to tell me which products to buy and when…. Heres a hint, the constitution gives congress 17 powers, and they are found in Article 1 Section 8.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2111 hrs
The whole point is that I don’t need you to tell me that. I can make these decisions for myself
Yes, and a lot of your fellow citizens have decided to utilize one of the advantages of civilization, i.e. the ability to pool resources and reduce risk for the group as a whole. Collective security. It is one of the organizing principles behind the human desire to organize into groups.
Furthermore, show me the constitutional provisions that allow for congress to tell me which products to buy and when…. Heres a hint, the constitution gives congress 17 powers, and they are found in Article 1 Section 8.
I have to admit, you are right on the money with that point. Requiring people to purchase health insurance is beyond the scope of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. I hate to tell you this, but they’ve been doing it for a long time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2119 hrs
“The government isn’t the only entity that can deprive you of your liberty.
If we are assuming legality, then yes it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 2127 hrs
“I have to admit, you are right on the money with that point. Requiring people to purchase health insurance is beyond the scope of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. I hate to tell you this, but they’ve been doing it for a long time. “
I love that line. Because the government has been overstepping it’s bounds and stealing out liberties one at a time, we are supposed to roll over and let them steal one more.
And Free Lunch…Since when do I need to provide “attributions” for my own feelings. I stated that while I don’t for moment believe any of your lies or half truths about cost savings, that even if I granted you that argument, that I felt that even if you were correct, that it wasn’t worth giving up yet another of my freedoms for some government convenience.
Your need to have an “attibution or a link” for everything is beyond pathetic, but now I’m supposed to link to some site that vaidates my feelings? I guess you have to look to a site to validate what you think, but I and a whole lot of other people like me have morals and opinions, that don’t require me to check some link to decide what they should be.
I guess it makes it easy it you don’t have to think for yourself. I guess that is why you want the government to think for you, and for the rest of us to pay for you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 0040 hrs
Yes, and a lot of your fellow citizens have decided to utilize one of the advantages of civilization, i.e. the ability to pool resources and reduce risk for the group as a whole. Collective security. It is one of the organizing principles behind the human desire to organize into groups.
Collective security? So let me get this straight, a liberal is advocating reduced freedom for increased security? I thought that was the hallmark of the neocon…...
You can discuss the principles behind human collective thought, but the #1 principle of the human spirit is that we are all FREE. Furthermore, you can tell me what SOME of my fellow man thinks, but until you admit that the healthcare debate belongs at the state level, we have nothing further to discuss… May I suggest a copy of the constitution. You can poo-poo my desire for our nation to follow its founding document all you want, call it old fashioned thought, talk about the fact that we turned our back on the constitution long ago and crushed it under the iron fist of FDR, THAT DOESN"T MEAN A DAMN THING. Until we return this country to a constitutional republic, it will remain unsustainable.
The private insurance industry offers pooling now…. I think that there are ways we can take it further by allowing small businesses, and individuals to pool as well, but for the congress to tell me that I have to purchase ANY product, whether it be milk, cheese, onions, or health insurance is Anti-American at its core.
As for your perspective on healthcare. You seem to think that my interests lie in protecting the privates, or that I have been somehow unwittingly co-opted by some subliminal message that they put out on the airwaves… Well, I’ve got news for you, most Americans (as Barack himself admitted) don’t begrudge a company making money for its employees and shareholders. I’m sorry that you have taken this vindictive attitude towards corporations that have generated a lot of wealth for many Americans….... I have to ask, how much wealth has the government generated for any Americans?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 0738 hrs
Yes, and a lot of your fellow citizens have decided to utilize one of the advantages of civilization, i.e. the ability to pool resources and reduce risk for the group as a whole. Collective security. It is one of the organizing principles behind the human desire to organize into groups.
So, using that train-wreck of a thought, I could say that our collective security demands that we force every person to sleep for eight hours, eat 12 servings of vegetables per day, get 60 minutes of rigorous exercise per day, brush our teeth 3 times per day, ad nauseam for the “Collective Security”. Make sense? Sounds to me like little more than the life of a prisoner in a federal max-security facility. Ironic, no?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 0928 hrs
...the ability to pool resources and reduce risk for the group as a whole.
ie. what a great idea for health care. Let’s have the gov’t remove our ability to find the group best for me and my family.
Of course, the mere notion of this leading to rationing and death panels is ABSURD !!!!! HAHAHAI’m so glad socialism lost this battle, even though it had control of the House, super-Senate, & Presidency.
Thank You Massachusetts !!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 0944 hrs
Thanks for jumping in, Doug, then I didn’t have to. I have to point out my favorite quote from the comments:
FLI would get rid of payroll taxes and replace them with VAT, a type of sales tax. That would be used to fund old age, survivors, and disability payments, workers compensation, unemployment, family leave, and health care. I would expand what Medicare covers and provide every citizen and legal resident with coverage through this improved Medicare. I would not waste money running it through private insurance companies because they are less efficient than Medicare is.
My, but doesn’t that remind me of some sort of social security idea? That is just brilliant! And we will never touch the money put in that fund for anything except our elders and the pool of money will grow so that we will always have enough money in the future too.
I agree with FL on one thing: ‘Government is very efficient’ at spending all the money it gets. Every agency knows that if it has extra money at the end of any fiscal period it will get reallocated to another agency in the next budget. Government with multiple arms has always penalized itself for efficiency. The way Government operates is functionally a disincentive for efficiency and counterintutive to a free market society. Always has been, always will be. Now you can accept that basic tenet and still believe in Government run things, but relying on Government for efficiency? That is an utter fallacy that still makes me a little sick to hear people believe in. It is more far fetched than creationism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 1034 hrs
I have been watching from the sidelines on this issue for a couple days, but there is something that has been bothering me. It is the insistence by the Dems that young adult and elderly pay the same rates for their health insurance. Yet, it has been pointed out on this very topic that the elderly USE their health insurance so very much more.
Compare Insurance to insurance, if I have a car accident, or have a claim on my homeowners insurance; if I own a Beemer or a Mcmansion rather than a Yugo or a small bungalow; If there is a statistical reason to believe that my claims will be more expensive and/or more frequent, then I will be charged a higher premium, or at least my class will. Why are we insisting that health insurance be otherwise?
If I have a DWI conviction on my record, I will be forced into a hihg-risk pool if I live in a state that mandates auto insurance. If I have a wood-burning furnace, some companies may not underwrite my homeowners policy. But if have been receiving on-going treatment for a medical condition, a complany HAS to cover me, at the same rates as someone who is healthy?
One other point, rather than looking at efficiency on a per-capita basis, or a % of dollars basis, both of which have weaknesses as has been pointed out, can anyone find admistrative consts on a PER VISIT (or per unit) basis? That way, if 2 people go 50 times or 50 people go twice, we will be comparing apples and apples.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 1156 hrs
You will never be comparing apples to apples when comparing administrative costs between government and private insurers because there are things that are counted as administrative costs in the private sector for which the equivalent costs are not counted in the public sector, namely the costs of capital.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 1211 hrs
I was jus tlooking at tht BVBB;
Here is a more exhaustive list of those Medicare costs that nare not included in the tally, according to the AMA:
• Tax collection to fund Medicare—this is analogous to
premium collection by private insurers, but whereas
premium collection expenses of private insurers are rightly
counted as administrative costs, tax collection expenses
incurred by employers and the Internal Revenue Service
do not appear in the official Medicare or NHE accounting
systems, and so are usually overlooked
• Medicare program marketing, outreach and education
• Medicare program customer service
• Medicare program auditing by the Office of the
Inspector General
• Medicare program contract negotiation
• Building costs of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) dedicated to the Medicare program
• Staff salaries for CMS personnel with Medicare
program responsibilities
• Congressional resources exhausted each year on setting
Medicare payment rates for servicesPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 1314 hrs
Looks like the efficiency of medicare myth is really starting to unravel… I am just shocked that so many seemingly intelligent people could ever buy into the notion that government does something efficiently.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 1833 hrs
For all the passionate arguments of diheru and Free Lunch and fact or opinion - and they may not all be entirely unreasonable - I only have to point out that 50+% of Americans just don’t agree with your assessments. I can add links if you’d prefer, but for you to ask would be disingenuous on your part.
Surely in any distribution of opinions there are reasonable arguments made by both sides, but in this case, the majority disagrees with you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2010 at 2012 hrs
You will never be comparing apples to apples when comparing administrative costs between government and private insurers
Yeah, incidentals like obscene salaries and executive perks, and yet, Medicare covers everyone they insure instead of wiggling out of honoring claims like private insurance.
You’re right. Not apples to apples.
But hey. Why should we get between you and the corporate serfdom you love so much.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 0124 hrs
You will never be comparing apples to apples when comparing administrative costs between government and private insurers
Yeah, incidentals like obscene salaries and executive perks, and yet, Medicare covers everyone they insure instead of wiggling out of honoring claims like private insurance.
You’re right. Not apples to apples.
But hey. Why should we get between you and the corporate serfdom you love so much.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 0124 hrs
Wouldn’t matter to me if that was true Keith. (we’ll ignore the fact that medicare rejects a higher percentage of claims than almost every private insurer)
It isn’t governement’s job to make those decsions for me. If you don’t like your insurance, pick a different one. The free market works. Once we give up our freedom to choose to the goverment, we don’t get it back. That is where the true serfdom lies. You are selling your freedoms for a bit of convenience.
What we need to do, is get governemtn out of the way. Let more insurance companies compete for your business. Change the rules to allow more pooling, to eliminate pre-existing conditions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 0208 hrs
Yet, all your rhetoric aside, you will never be comparing apples to apples, keith. I addition I am not so blind as to believe government can run up endless debt. The implication of that is that all government, medicare included, will be drastically cut over the next 15 or so years.
I have no need or requirement to become a corporate serf. The world does not consist of the black and white choices you see.
Corporations gain what power they do have through the efforts of statists like you. Left to fend in a free market, corporations come and go and their power is fleeting. I’ll take the corruptions of a free market over your government tyranny any day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 0753 hrs
I only have to point out that 50+% of Americans just don’t agree with your assessments.
You used my comments as part of a national survey! I am flattered
Which ones? Do they think the escort would cost more?
I can add links if you’d prefer, but for you to ask would be disingenuous on your part.
Very nice. Are you trying to paraphrase Bernie Madoff?
Come on Hutch, it good to share.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 0907 hrs
The world does not consist of the black and white choices you see.
Come on BBB, it is about whether or not health care is a public good or a private one?
Apparently some people are still sorting out their position on that question as well.
“keep your government hands off my Medicare.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html
I do not think they are alone, the debate to this point has done more to obscure that basic policy choice rather than reveal it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 0956 hrs
No, fact or opinion. Plainly health care can exist as a public good, private good, or anything in between. I am not obligated to one of your two choices.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2010 at 1055 hrs
These administrative spending numbers have been challenged on the grounds that they exclude some aspects of Medicare’s administrative costs, such as the expenses of collecting Medicare premiums and payroll taxes, and because Medicare’s larger average claims because of its older enrollees make its administrative costs look smaller relative to private plan costs than they really are. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage.16 This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.
(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.)17http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1236 hrs
Administrative Costs per Person
When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year (see Table 1). This is despite the fact that private-sector “administrative” costs include state health insurance premium taxes of up to 4 percent (averaging around 2 percent, depending on the state)—an expense from which Medicare is exempt—as well as the cost of non-claim health care expenses, such as disease management and on-call nurse consultation services.
Medicare Costs are higher, not lower, than private health insurance costs…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1411 hrs
The quote listed above is a perfect illustration of propaganda being fed to people desperate to find evidence to support their widely discredited beliefs.
This entire analysis by Heritage compares Medicare expenses to private insurances expenses on a per-person basis. The flaw in this line of reasoning is easily discovered when you consider that insurance companies and medicare do not accumulate administrative expenses on a per-person basis, but rather on how much their services are utilized.
For example, lets say you have two hypothetical ins. companies, insurer a and insurer b. Lets say they both have 1000 customers.
Now, imagine that all of insurer a’s customers are aged 20-30 and all were in excellent health, so they would only visit the doctor’s twice a year for routine checkups and no hospital visits.
Insurer b, on the other hand, has a customer base comprised entirely of cancer patients, people with heart disease and people with diabetes.
In this scenario, its easy to see how insurer b would have much higher per-person administrative costs, even if their business practices were much more efficient. But, if you looked at their respective administrative costs as a percentage of expenditures (which, btw, is the measure favored by honest analyists, as opposed to propagandists), you would readily see numbers that are more closely related to reality.
The difference between private insurance and medicare is similar to the situation above. Medicare recipients are older, so statistically, they will use more services. If you have a group of people using services more, the administrative costs will be higher (on a per-person basis), even if the insurer is more efficient.
Once again, we see that corporate welfare “think tanks” like Heritage are willing to distort the truth to disseminate propaganda to trick the average person into supporting political policies that are antithetical to their own economic interests.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1453 hrs
That is why, when the CBO compared the administrative costs of Medicare with the (private insurance) administrative costs of the Medicare Advantage plans, they found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1457 hrs
Also, Republicans like to claim that Medicare unfairly limits their expenditures to providers. If that were true, that would skew their administrative costs ratio much higher.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1500 hrs
You may note that your source in comment 121, djheru, relies on a report of administrative costs that does not in fact attempt to adjust for the costs of capital, does not attempt to allocate similar costs to medicare, and says “The higher administrative costs of private plans do not imply those plans are less efficient than the traditional FFS program.” Please read your own links.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2010 at 1545 hrs
The difference between private insurance and medicare is similar to the situation above.
The major difference between insurance companies and Medicare is that the insurance companies are not completely bankrupt… and Medicare is. A secondary difference would be that insurance companies receive premiums from the members they serve… and medicare gets it’s money from people that it doesn’t. Let’s try a third difference… customers of insurance companies have choices and options to take their business elsewhere… Medicare recipients don’t… and in fact, they have little alternative when a board of bureaucrats makes umbrella health care choices for them that they disagree with. If the panel says no, then there is no means of redress.
Still, the biggest difference is that medicare is completely, utterly, and totally bankrupt…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2010 at 1441 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 06:46 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).