quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Yes, I am but in the US, it's govt. run, govt. funded insurance and for private interests, farmers, bankers etc.

Doesn't it strike you as at least curious that the people are forced to go to the so-called 'marketplace' to buy insurance for their health care but bankers, farmers and businesses can go to the govt. to buy insurance for a substantial businessr risk ?

And it's still nothing like how a single-payer system is structured or operated.
It's still insurance, no matter who is running it.

Just because it's run by the government doesn't make it a single-payer system; they are fundamentally different animals.

Completely wrong. Go read up on these govt. insurance corps. They all are in fact single payer, govt, run insurance corps. Anytime any fund covers any claims for payment...it is insurance and because you pay the govt. premiums, it is single payer. I just don't understand your thinking here.

Because you don't understand the fundamental differences between insurance-based thinking and single-payer.
And yes, I did have a look at the government run corps - they are insurance policies.

Let me dumb it down and try to explain some very simple differences in the concepts.
Insurance: You opt-in, pay a calculated fixed premium, get some sort of negotiated cover.
When you need to claim, that's what you do. You put your claim forward and they pay out to cover your losses.
Single-payer system: You don't opt-in, everyone is automatically included into the scheme.
Your 'premium' is a percentage of what you earn. Cover is 100% regardless of who you are or what you earn as long as you are a bonafide citizen. You never make a claim - you just use the service when you need it.

If you want some sort of analagy, you could compare a taxi with a greyhound bus service.
They are both transport to get you from A to B for a price.
But here's the difference....
A taxi is transport for you personally. Its service is taylored such that it takes you from where you hailed it to the place you designated. If there is a traffic jam or a detour, you pay for the wait or extra distance because the meter is still ticking. You only share a taxi by choice. A taxi doesn't usualy cruise around empty because it costs money (time/fuel etc) to do that so they wait for a fare.
On a greyhound bus, you catch it at designated stations/stops and it goes to a pre-determined destination along a pre-set route. You pay a price for the journey no matter how long it takes - the fare doesn't rise if you are stuck in a traffic jam or get sent on a detour. Also, you share that bus with many others, it's not dedicated transport just for you (and friends). The bus will leave at its designated time and go to its destination even if it was empty.

Lots of subtle but fundamental differences between the two.
And you, like many Americans, have proved you don't understand the differences between insurance and a single-payer system.
Like Desi, you are under the misconception that because it's paid for by the government, it's single-payer - it isn't.

I don't get into subjectives but it seems I need to 'dumb it down for you' freedom.

I am a banker I pay premiums based on my total deposits to a single-payer called the FDIC, my bank goes bad, the govt. (FDIC) insures my deposits. Let me know when you find a single deposit institution typical retail bank that has not joined the federal reserve banking system and is not so insured or you also...find another 'payer.'

(types of deposit products include checking, NOW, and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts (MMDA), and time deposits such as certificates of deposit (CDs).

I am a farmer, I pay the Dept. Agric. taxpayer/premium funded single-payer Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) to insure my product against a bad yield, bad weather or several such occurrences that could effect my farm income. You may...may find a few very small farmers who do not eagerly 'opt in' for this cheap, single payer, premium and taxpayer funded subsidized insurance....but I doubt it.

Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC) is an independent agency of the United States government that was created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private defined benefit pension plans, provide timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits, and keep pension insurance premiums at the lowest level necessary to carry out its operations. Subject to other statutory limitations, PBGC's insurance program pays pension benefits up to the maximum guaranteed benefit set by law to participants who retire at 65

Many employers do not buy this single-payer insurance but for those who do. the PBGC is the 'single-payer' govt. funded insurance fund that pays claims. Let me know when you find any 'private' pension insurance policies offered or any 'other payer.' You will not.

Like Desi, we are under no misconceptions about a 'single' federal corp created to provide 'single-payer' insurance for various risks such as banking, crops and pensions for just 3 examples of single payer insurance.

I don't intend to get drawn back into the forums, but the errors on this were fairly egregious.

It is relatively easy to find "any private pension insurance policies offered or any other payer" (sic). Despite freedom's assertion you will not.
In fact, PBGC only covers defined benefit pensions which are a tiny fraction of the pension market. Other (numerous) examples include multipayer pension plans, self funded pension plans, government funded pension plans and defined contribution benefit plans.

More to the point, the pbgc is not a 'single-payer' system in the slightest, and it has no backstop by the federal government. It is paid by premiums on retirement pensions.

The same general objections and observations apply to the other examples given.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
True it is called National Insurance but it is not managed by any Insurance company. As I stated earlier all Tax and NI collected are passed on to the Treasury (a Government department) where it is added to all other Taxes (Council tax, Corporation tax etc). The Treasury then allocate funds to the NHS, Local Councils, Prison service etc.

The NHS would be, in essence, the insurance company. Taxes would be, in essence, the premiums paid for the coverage.

But there are no 'policies' like you have in insurance.
No policy documents or a choice of cover or deductibles like insurance.
The tax is a flat-rate income tax, not a fixed premium like insurance.
There's no renewal either - it's from cradle to grave.
The funds for it come from the general treasury pot of all taxes, not just those collected for the scheme.

quote:

For your earlier reply, the UK wasn't much different from the US prior to 1948.
There was no healthcare unless you could afford it.
Just like the US is now, if you don't have private insurance or the money, you don't get to see a doctor and you don't get treatment - you die.
It took the vision, and the balls, of Aneurin Bevan (a Welsh labour politician) to 'invent' the concept of what we call the NHS.
It happened virtually overnight on July 5 1948.
There wasn't a vote on it, the people didn't ask for it, it was born from a vision and launched by the government of the day.
And, as they say.... the rest is history.
So, on June 4th there was nothing. No money meant you died.
On June 5th we had the NHS and every citizen was included automatically.
It proves that it can be done.

quote:

But we all know that the US hate anything that is a socialist-style policy and they are all for individualism and profit-driven greed; captialism at its ugliest and worst.
I don't think the US could ever dream of something similar because profit will always raise its ugly head.
Maggie Thatcher tried to implement private healthcare in the UK via insurance policies like the US system.
Although there are private companies (and they do make a profit), overwhemlingly, the not-so-rich people rejected it in favour of the NHS.
It's only an American dream if you are healthy and wealthy enough to afford it.
Those that can't afford it will die by the wayside - I'd call that a nightmare.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
In terms of lowering costs, imagine you have a business that requires an item of equipment that costs $19,000. You then go back to your supplier and tell him you acutally need 10 and you negotiate a lower price. Costs come down.

I've tried to explain to Desi but he doesn't seem to understand economies of scale.
Let's take a real example: new blood pressure machines for monitoring patients.
A single doctor's surgery might need half a dozen.
A single hospital might need 100 of them if it's a biggish hospital.
Now take the NHS which has something like 200+ hospitals and over 150,000 separate GP surgeries.
So instead of negotiating a price for 100 machines, we are talking in terms of over 200,000 machines for which there will certainly be a huge cost saving per machine.
And that's just one example of economies of scale.
But Desi doesn't accept that.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Well yes, except that private insurance has a profit left over, the govt. does not. In fact, if the govt. even after collecting premiums doesn't have enough to cover claims, [it] goes to the taxpayer to cover it.

How much profit is left over, MrRodgers? Since government can just go to the taxpayer to cover any "deficits," what is the motivation for making sure costs are kept down?

quote:

As a conservative, you should be outraged over that...I am. My rationale is that if the govt. can provide such insurance for various other private risk, it can do so for health care.

You seem to think I'm okay with the Feds offering insurance for other stuff. I'm not. For example, it would be a loose translation to say the FDIC is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 (authority to coin money and regulate its value), but I see no authorization for crop insurance.

I made no assumptions about how you felt about govt. insurance corps....only asked.

quote:

As a conservative, you should be outraged over that

quote:

There seems even until today, only crony capitalist/political reasons for their to be any deficits or continuing deficits in govt., insurance corp. funding.
I read that despite a multi-$billion unfunded liability at the PBGC, congress has twice refused to go to the insured (businesses who left the taxpayer holding the bag) for higher premiums and [they] and the scum who throw pensions at the govt. are quite happy, enjoying that corp. welfare.
The constitution does not prohibit the govt. from issuing debt or moving general tax revenues to cover any govt. insurance shortfalls. The RTC issued bonds guaranteed by the feds (taxpayers) to clean out the scum from the S & L fraud.
The very concept as I've tried to explain, is that there are no profits only reserves (or not) and it is a form of bailout or corp. welfare every time. I never wrote and have never wrote that this was anything other than flat out immoral. TARP was immoral.
Single-payer, govt. insurance corps. in all forms, are all part and parcel of the continuing moral hazard that our crony/capitalist/plutocracy is and has been since WWII.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I think this point and your take on it are chalk and cheese.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


He's on hide.

What an interesting way to say you haven't got the intelligence to discuss an issue.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Why do insurance companies charge premiums? So insurance companies have the money to pay for the covered care.

You conveniently forgot to mention that those premiums also cover profit for the shareholders and compensation for those who work for the insurance co. How convenient.