RE: A rather large presumption

RE: A rather large presumption (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

graceadieu -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 6:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Who would operate and pay for these public health free clinics, Rich? That would be the same government entities, partially grant-funded NGO's, and public/private partnerships that operate free public health clinics as they currently exist, Vince. And who would pay for them to open countless new clinics and operate them for 3x as many hours? We're talking about a pretty big taxpayer expense. A worthwhile one, but an expensive one. Would you rather pay more money to get health insurance for yourself, or spend that same money to cover free health clinics that will probably only offer limited services?

DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 7:24:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri My health isn't a National concern, and shouldn't be. The Federal Government, according to the arguments supporting it's ratification, was to be concerned with things that impact the USA as one unit, and to intervene in situations where one State was pit against another State (at the State level). Concerns within the State that pertained only to that State and it's people, were left to the individual States and individuals. That's the way it was set up, to keep the Federal Government less powerful and to prevent tyranny from a National government. Hence the way the ACA was set up to be run at the state level. Unfortunately, some states decided they didn't feel like acting for themselves, and would rather have the federal government tell them what to do. And yet, the ACA isn't going to lower the individual cost of procedures or services. Romneycare is having this problem now. A Federal program forced on the State is still a Federal program. It's still Federal control. Telling the States that they have to set up exchanges or the Federal Government will do it for them isn't really allowing them to act for themselves.

PeonForHer -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 7:28:27 PM)
quote: Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. I don't know why you think foreign participants would have difficulty with this idea, TH. It's not as if any of us cares for you, so why should the US government?

cloudboy -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 8:15:50 PM)
This same question was asked about: (1) public education (2) social security (3) Medicaid (4) civil rights (5) minimum wage (6) child labor laws (7) federal reserve (8) 40 hour work week (9) the FDA (10) the EPA ------------------ The answer to this question back then is the same as the answer now:

TheHeretic -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 8:38:42 PM)
Given that the only thing on your list which is even roughly comparable to assuming responsibility for healthcare is public education (which is still at least symbolically run by elected officials from the indivisual school districts), I think you are making a fine arguement for government to stay the fuck away from it, Cloudboy.

subrob1967 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 9:32:48 PM)
Why the fuck does everyone continue to equate health CARE with health INSURANCE? You do NOT need insurance to procure health care, you never have, and never will. Obamacare forces you to buy health INSURANCE, not health CARE. Government run health CARE should be run at the local level, within the states, and not the morass of the Federal government. If a state wants to provide "universal" health care, the citizens should have the ability to vote on the issue, period!

cloudboy -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 10:07:31 PM)
Good point. A better way to improve healthcare would be a single payer system. The 20-30% cut insurance companies keep would be eliminated and then rates for health care could be bargained down. The result would be less expensive and expanded health care.

DomKen -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 10:15:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Good point. A better way to improve healthcare would be a single payer system. The 20-30% cut insurance companies keep would be eliminated and then rates for health care could be bargained down. The result would be less expensive and expanded health care. I've always firmly believed the best fix is simply removing the age floor on Medicare. Adjust the tax to make it work and then get busy making it a really good system.

Phydeaux -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 10:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Good point. A better way to improve healthcare would be a single payer system. The 20-30% cut insurance companies keep would be eliminated and then rates for health care could be bargained down. The result would be less expensive and expanded health care. Any evidence to support that 20-30%? Are you interested in an actual real number - or would you rather just continue with fantasy? Inc did a review of 190 health care companies. Net pretax profit margin: 7.8% Net margin: 7%.

DomKen -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/16/2013 11:22:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Good point. A better way to improve healthcare would be a single payer system. The 20-30% cut insurance companies keep would be eliminated and then rates for health care could be bargained down. The result would be less expensive and expanded health care. Any evidence to support that 20-30%? Are you interested in an actual real number - or would you rather just continue with fantasy? The ACA mandated a maximum 25% overhead and profit. A bunch of plans had to refund money to their customers the last two years.

Arturas -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 12:19:55 AM)
One would think that if the Constitution actually covered individual health care then that would have happened in 1776. Therefore it does not. One good test for what the founding fathers meant by anything in the constitution is to see where they allocated money after formation of the U.S. and in the decade after the constitution was written. I cannot see any record of money spent on a national health care system. So, why anyone would think the Government has that constitutional responsibility, right or mandate suddenly after well over 200 years of writing "provide for the general welfare" is just plain silly.

Arturas -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 12:21:12 AM)
Silly: See Obamacare. See Pelosi: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQvCpNx1O0

Phydeaux -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 12:25:18 AM)
Sure. Which doesn't change the facts much. You come out with an insurance plan. People sign up. Differing numbers of people, of different health levels. They vary on how sick they get in the year. Some years, the companies make more, some years the companies make less. The net effect of this regulation is that it will lower industry ROI by about 1%. Suppose you have 4 years Before ACA +22% +28% -12% -10% = 7% After ACA +22% +25% -12% -10% = 6.25% Why is that a bad thing? More profitable (besides things like executive perks) means you spin off cash - can invest in new technology. You can afford to try new drugs, new trials. It means shareholders want to hold your company.

jlf1961 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 3:53:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Why the fuck does everyone continue to equate health CARE with health INSURANCE? You do NOT need insurance to procure health care, you never have, and never will. Obamacare forces you to buy health INSURANCE, not health CARE. Government run health CARE should be run at the local level, within the states, and not the morass of the Federal government. If a state wants to provide "universal" health care, the citizens should have the ability to vote on the issue, period! Because if you have some catastrophic illness like cancer, if you dont have health insurance, you will not get the treatment you need. Of if you need an organ transplant, same thing. If you want to separate the two, then you need to look at universal health care, and take the insurance companies out of the equation.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 4:37:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Why the fuck does everyone continue to equate health CARE with health INSURANCE? You do NOT need insurance to procure health care, you never have, and never will. Obamacare forces you to buy health INSURANCE, not health CARE. Government run health CARE should be run at the local level, within the states, and not the morass of the Federal government. If a state wants to provide "universal" health care, the citizens should have the ability to vote on the issue, period! Because if you have some catastrophic illness like cancer, if you dont have health insurance, you will not get the treatment you need. Of if you need an organ transplant, same thing. If you want to separate the two, then you need to look at universal health care, and *take the insurance companies out of the equation*. That's the main crux of the argument. Insurance companies are in it to make money - not provide a universal care system. And that, is the root cause of the problem. Phydeaux quotes only 7% profit for the insurance companies. But, that is after they've paid out the shareholders and the CEO salaries! Take out the shareholders completely and cap the CEO's gross income (including pensions and stock options) to $250K a year and then plug that through the profit calculator. I bet that 7% profit soars to a much bigger figure. Then, cap the payments to all the hospitals, doctors, private clinics and big pharma to sensible levels; I bet those profits would now be an obscene amount and probably in excess of 70%. Yes, just a guess I know. But having worked in the insurance business, I'm saying that's a fair guess and if anything, on the conservative side. Now appoint a federal government department to run an identical scheme, nationwide, and start with a 10% premium taken as a tax on income and replace your current insurance plan so that it's no longer necessary to have it. Voila! A dirt-cheap system that I'm sure many working Americans would use rather than pay huge insurance costs. And that would not require any changes in the constitution or any laws.

jlf1961 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 5:50:29 AM)
I have seen articles showing the profit margin is lower. I know doctors have to repay student loans, hospitals have to stay current with technology so they have to charge accordingly. Then there is the wonderful world of malpractice lawsuits.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 6:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 That's the main crux of the argument. Insurance companies are in it to make money - not provide a universal care system. And that, is the root cause of the problem. They make a profit by providing a service. And, that is bad... how? quote: Phydeaux quotes only 7% profit for the insurance companies. But, that is after they've paid out the shareholders and the CEO salaries! Take out the shareholders completely and cap the CEO's gross income (including pensions and stock options) to $250K a year and then plug that through the profit calculator. I bet that 7% profit soars to a much bigger figure. There is no authority granted to the Federal Government to cap CEO pay (what's funny, though, is that caps on wages and prices are exactly what started the whole "employer sponsored" health insurance perk that is blamed for the debacle that is the US health care system). quote: Then, cap the payments to all the hospitals, doctors, private clinics and big pharma to sensible levels; I bet those profits would now be an obscene amount and probably in excess of 70%. Yes, just a guess I know. But having worked in the insurance business, I'm saying that's a fair guess and if anything, on the conservative side. Won't happen. Every time the "Doc Fix" Bill is set to expire, a new one is passed. The "Doc Fix" Bill is legislation that is passed to prevent automatic cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates that were signed into law when Clinton reformed Medicare. quote: Now appoint a federal government department to run an identical scheme, nationwide, and start with a 10% premium taken as a tax on income and replace your current insurance plan so that it's no longer necessary to have it. Voila! A dirt-cheap system that I'm sure many working Americans would use rather than pay huge insurance costs. And that would not require any changes in the constitution or any laws. Yes, yes it would.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 6:33:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have seen articles showing the profit margin is lower. I know doctors have to repay student loans, hospitals have to stay current with technology so they have to charge accordingly. Then there is the wonderful world of malpractice lawsuits. That's no different to anywhere else in the world jlf. Everyone manages to repay those student loans in a short space of time once they start working. Only in the US does the term "charge accordingly" equate to "charge the fuck out of the customers" because there are no reigns within the industry. Remove the industry completely (or make it completely optional) and when they realise they are ripping-off the customers disproportionally they might think about reducing their charges. As for the malpractice lawsuits; that again comes down to individual greed because of the extortionate prices within the US. If they brought down the awards for unfortunate malpractice lawsuits (and the greedy lawyers fees), people wouldn't feel the need to extract the absolute maximum they can because the legal system allows them to do it. The whole deadly spiral of costs would be put into reverse and people would be better off in the long run.

Yachtie -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 6:37:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Everyone manages to repay those student loans in a short space of time once they start working. That was easy, wasn't it! [8\|][:(]

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A rather large presumption (11/17/2013 6:55:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 That's the main crux of the argument. Insurance companies are in it to make money - not provide a universal care system. And that, is the root cause of the problem. They make a profit by providing a service. And, that is bad... how? Our doctors, surgeries and pharmacists also make a profit. The difference being, the costs are significantly reduced. And those are paid from the taxes - not profiteering insurance companies. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Phydeaux quotes only 7% profit for the insurance companies. But, that is after they've paid out the shareholders and the CEO salaries! Take out the shareholders completely and cap the CEO's gross income (including pensions and stock options) to $250K a year and then plug that through the profit calculator. I bet that 7% profit soars to a much bigger figure. There is no authority granted to the Federal Government to cap CEO pay (what's funny, though, is that caps on wages and prices are exactly what started the whole "employer sponsored" health insurance perk that is blamed for the debacle that is the US health care system). If those CEO's were employed by the government then they hold the purse strings and can dictate the level of pay. That's exactly the same for any company or any government employee. So... no authority is needed from federal government to cap the pay. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Then, cap the payments to all the hospitals, doctors, private clinics and big pharma to sensible levels; I bet those profits would now be an obscene amount and probably in excess of 70%. Yes, just a guess I know. But having worked in the insurance business, I'm saying that's a fair guess and if anything, on the conservative side. Won't happen. Every time the "Doc Fix" Bill is set to expire, a new one is passed. The "Doc Fix" Bill is legislation that is passed to prevent automatic cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates that were signed into law when Clinton reformed Medicare. Australia is setup much the same way as the US with the main difference being the reimbursments from the government are capped to a much greater extent than those private companies want to charge. That didn't stop them from signing up to the government plan and still remaining a 'private' business with profits etc. It works there and could work in the US without changing anything. The only change required is the American people's mindset to think outside of the box. The problem with a lot of US legislation is, it's either kicked down the road for a later date or it has a fixed term of power. Most other countries pass a law and it stays on the books forever until it's changed. That's why nobody else suffers from the "expiring laws and mandates" problem that the US have. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Now appoint a federal government department to run an identical scheme, nationwide, and start with a 10% premium taken as a tax on income and replace your current insurance plan so that it's no longer necessary to have it. Voila! A dirt-cheap system that I'm sure many working Americans would use rather than pay huge insurance costs. And that would not require any changes in the constitution or any laws. Yes, yes it would. No, it wouldn't. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government can't offer something to it's people without a major change or new laws. It's just a new service; no different to when cars were introduced and licenses were required to drive one on a public road. That didn't require a change in constitution. Offering an alternative to healthcare and claiming the costs to be recovered by a voluntary tax is also allowed under the constitution. So what change is required?? None at all.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02