Reply With Quote
what's wrong with single-payer?
Multi- er for-profit health insurance, with no bargaining leverage, is dumb, but the corps love America dumbed down and bleeding money into corp bank accounts.
As articulated by the left
what's wrong with single-payer?
Multi- er for-profit health insurance, with no bargaining leverage, is dumb, but the corps love America dumbed down and bleeding money into corp bank accounts.
Our government is incompetent and incapable of administering such a program efficiently. See social security, medicare, the post office and pretty much every other bureaucratic creation of our government.
So the cure for for-profit health insurance run by the coprorations is to replace it with a for-loss one run by the politicians? Why should I trust the politicians more than the corporations?Multi- er for-profit health insurance, with no bargaining leverage, is dumb, but the corps love America dumbed down and bleeding money into corp bank accounts.
The insurance companies have been doing a bang-up job. Why not let somebody else it up for a change.
Why are you so outraged that companies make profits?
I know you'll be disappointed to hear this, but America will never become Cuba.
Here's an equation even YOU should be able to understand:
No profits = No employees = No tax base = No govt provided health care
Never underestimate the ability of the federal government to make a bad situation worse.
How about this guy? He's "somebody else."
So instead we turn to a system where health care providers have zero leverage and manueverability, leading to limited payments and a loss of research and top-of-the-line equipment dollars?
Why the should we centralize a middle-man?
We need to open up compe ion among the middle-men and subsidize the source to drive the costs down. Otherwise you are just hiding the costs, not reducing it.
This administration has really looked pathetic in the last month or so.
that is just it. you can not trust one over the other. but it is apparent that HR676 does have support. the primary impetus being that the public has come to believe that for the insurance industry, reform means expanding their business to include more individuals in their plans while shifting higher costs to the government. most people do not want to purchase health plans at premiums they cannot afford, and then be stuck with inadequate coverage designed to keep premiums from climbing even higher.
If the majority of Americans truly love Obama and want government run healthcare...
Why does Obama not just come out and tell the people his true agenda. Give the people a list of all those who will vote on the bill and those that will not. Obama can then tell his supporters to be sure and vote out all those that will not vote on the bill and vote those in who will.
All of these manipulations & lies, it is ruining my perception of The Great Obama. I am losing respect for the man due to his inability to lead the charge while instead sending out his indians to take the arrows for him.
I donot believe government run healthcare would work at all. I could go on and on but whats the point? WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS!
How hard is that for the dems to understand? How hard is that for anyone that wants free to understand? We are losing money every ing day. This is not made up to pick a team (repub or dems) this is the truth. This administration needs to concentrate the trillion dollars they spent on the stimulus package.
I honestly don't understand why the folks who voted for Obama are not holding him accountable for this. 12 percent of the money has been spent. He said if we did not pass this bill unemployment would go up to 9 percent. We passed the bill and it went up t0 9 1/2 percent. Now we want to not only toy with the ideal of ing with our healthcare, they were willing to do this without getting feedback from the American people. I personally think they will get this past because the dems are going out in 2010, why not go out with a bang.
Most Americans donot want this.
the insurance companies are basically heading towards creating a system where they can advertise to only the young and healthy, and all the expensive care will be on the government plan. so the taxpayers are still going to get screwed. insurers are already guilty of such common practices as cherry picking and lemon dropping.
LMAO
What about; Life, Home, Auto and other P&C?
Should ALL insurance company's be outlawed because they take it more than they pay out?
Where do you get your 25% number? Health insurance carriers make a 3.6% profit, on average - ranking 86th in the list of all industries in profit margin.
Also, according to your logic, we certainly shouldn't give MORE to the govt. - they are the epitome of an organization that returns horrible bang for your buck.
Profit != inefficiency. Inefficiency = Inefficiency
GM didn't return a profit; Toyota did; does that make GM better than
Toyota? Only in the warped, deranged liberal mind, I guess.
It's like Extra Stout said several weeks ago; arguing with a liberal about their beliefs is like arguing with a "young earther". Despite all the evidence, all the proof, all the history to the contrary; you can't sway their opinions. Liberalism is your religion; you are beyond reason.
so let's not do anything!..
So I guess you were out protesting when the prior administartion was making claims that turned out to be not true? If you weren't then you have no right to complain about this administration..
Profit and payouts are not the same thing. Health care insurance carriers typically pay higher commission rates to agencies than P&C companies do, and just about all policies are placed through agencies instead of a mix of agency placed and direct purchase for P&C.
In some cases, 1st year commission rates are 50% or more before dropping to the normal 10-20% rate at renewal. All of this is part of the money not paid out, but is not part of the carriers profit.
Of course, since health "insurance" is more of managed care + catatrosphe, payouts are much more stable in the health insurance field as opposed to P&C where payouts are completely based on occurence.
The 25% figure sounds a little high to me, but a 17-20% figure is probably accuracte as guaranteed less payout that premium collected. I have not seen actual stats on it, that's just my estimates from working in the field.
Who is going to "market" the govt. option? Are they going to be volunteers?
I can state categorically that for group insurance (where over 90% of people with coverage get it through); the standard commission rate from carriers is 5% for small group, and it reduces the more annualized premium is; first year, second year, ad infinitum.
Over 50%?
Not on your life; EVER.
He said "profit".
That, ultimately, is the only difference between a "profit" and a "not for profit". All other expenses should be roughly similar (if not controlled MORE by the profit - since there is, ultimately, an incentive to do so; right?
The 25% figure you quoted was "pay out 25% less then they receive". That's not profit.
Yes he talked about profit, but he did not mention profit when referring to 25%. That's not to say he didn't mean it, but it was not expressly associated with profit.
That was the only part I was discussing.
Yep, operating costs chew up quite a bit.
How are we better off simply shifting higher costs to an en y that 1) we have to fund through our taxes and 2) is incapable of achieving the kind of efficiencies that private corporations are capable of? How do we actually reduce health care costs instead of just changing who & how we pay for the same costs just by sifting those costs through an inefficient bureaucracy?
Some companies provide something other than tangible products and they are called (drumroll please) --- SERVICES.
You are a moron.
BTW -- people that have 401k's that invest in insurance companies (and other health care companies) sure as want them to make profits.
I just hit reply. Don't be so sensitive. Obama and his crew are acting like children not me. In this case the American people are being the parents saying "no Obama you can't have this, we don't have the money to pay for it, you already are over your allowance now be a big boy and try to pay back that money and when you do we will talk about your new adventure"
How can anyone with half a brain want to do what other countries are doing? A good read:
MEDICINE AND HEALTH: Here’s a Second Opinion:
Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
Never gets old.....Blame Bush... Fix the economy. That is something to do. Donot add to the deficit. I swear I don't get people that think this healthcare is a good idea. We don't have the money. Simple you would think.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
