Indeed. It reminds one of those who feel propelled to spread the good news of salvation and then are aghast when someone doesn't want what they have to offer. The shock often turns to disdain and exclusionary thoughts, as well as thinly veiled anger. How could they not want this? Don't they know what we're doing for them? Political salvation is at hand!
The non-believer is the unclean, the immoral, the evil. The skeptic or the agnostic also falls in the line of fire.
Costs are out of control because catastrophic event insurance, as well as end of life procedures, coupled with every candy ass going to the doc every time they get a splinter, cost a lot.
The 'evil' insurance companies make less than 5% net profit on their services. Damn them!
Cutting out waste and fraud, opening up insurance purchases over state lines, and raising the deductible amount would do more to control costs than the 2000 pages of bull the Dems and their medical/pharmaceutical special interests put together.
How much would the selling of insurance over state lines lower premiums?
I agree with some of what you say, but when you look at their ROE figures, that 5% is a bit misleading.
Not to mention what they spend in overhead to make it a for-profit venture.
Why do you think universal healthcare coverage will make it less expensive?
What's exactly the solution you propose?
Thats a good question, one I do not have an answer to.
Let me put this straight.
I have two opinions, the realistic, non-scorched-Earth perspective.
...and then the " those who cant take care of themselves" at ude.
Healthcare?
Realistically, the country needs to reform it in some meaningful way. What way is that...I have no idea. My second perspective dictates that I dont have a supreme interest one way or the other.
Because really, I dont give a about people. Starving, broke, homeless, no healthcare, no education, I dont give a .
Yeah, it bums me out and makes me want to see some of those unfortunates succeed, but its the cold, hard truth that the dead-weight in this country is expanding. Any assitance program, HealthCare overhaul or other domestic, social change is going to be absolutely abused by a very loud minority.
Take the warning labels off of everything and let nature take its course, but thats me.What's exactly the solution you propose?
If you mean healthcare, there is no solution. There just plain isnt one. Any plan to give 400 million people health coverage comes with an insurmountable price-tag that has to be paid by someone. Those "someone's" are me and you...and I am not particularly charitable, especially by way of government mandate and law.
Reality Sucks: There is no way to pay for Universal Healthcare without further taxing the successful to prop up the unsuccessful.
But I see healthcare reform as an inevitablity, nonetheless. At some point, something is going to be passed on this topic. Unfortunately, I have nothing to suggest as a better way. Again, my sympathy for other humans is all but nonexistent.
But I look at ObamaCare, the setup, the socialized risk, the private profit, law enforcement having to fine/ticket/arrest citizens because they didnt pay their insurance bills, the bureaucracy, the shady dealings that even lead to this and I can say with a certain amount of conviction that this is not the best way.
Thats all I got.
I am more than willing to bet that insurance companies will have windfall profits the moment their target market went from 80 million-ish to 200 million (dont know why I kept saying 400 million) bound-by-law customers.
Expenses go up, sure. But revenue goes through the roof as well. And lets be reeeeeal honest here...
These insurance companies, under Obamacare, dont have any risk of failure. Your company would have to be so incredibly derelict and incompetent in that environment that your failure was a razor-thin margin anyway.
You have law enforcement mandating people pay their bills to you, a non-government agency. Youre a private company, with private profit with 200 million adults/families who are now bound by law to pay for your service (obviously spread over X number of providers, big and small).
Government will be heavily involved with their business practices. If the government is now reponsible in enforcing that their revenue stream stays solvent, I am sure they will have interest in their premium costs, entry conditions, etc.
But it would seem to me a bloated and bersome method of execution.
With their current ROE, expenses are hardly a concern to the contemporary insurance company. Were it a concern, insurance companies would already be working together for a common do entation standard at the very least. But no, each company maintains it's own, uniquely re ed, byzantine, counter-intuitive administrative methodology.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 02-05-2010 at 04:17 PM.
"universal healthcare coverage will make it less expensive"
I heard an SA doctor on the radio, working in public health care say for every $1 spent on his service treating poor people now, $20 were saved later when they would be much sicker, and more expensive to treat (eg, undetected/untreated diabetes allowed to progress to where it caused kidney failure, peripheral neuropathy, cardiovascular disease)
I've heard that too, and on the surface it makes sense. However, when applied across a population, it actually doesn't save much if any money. It does, however, result in a healthier population. Advocates of universal healthcare, and I am one, need to understand that cost reduction is not the droid we're looking for.
"force individuals to hand over a significant portion of their income and wealth to large insurers on an annual basis"
employees in group plans already do that. what the is your problem?
The participants in group plans are not compelled to do so by federal law. That's one major difference.
Do they have now? There's no serious compe ion. How many health insurance companies have failed in the last decade?
I fully agree. I think there are ways of making some marginal, small improvements, but the grand, definitive, absolute, solution many dream about is a dream.
Then, it's about time. A few centuries ago, large scale famine was still a frequent occurrence in the Western World. Today is unthinkable. The access, relative affordability and quality of the health-care people have today, even the poorest of the poor, is way superior to what it was 100 years ago.
Yeps, often that's the case.Reality Sucks
Solutions often start just like that.
wrongies want to be "free" to choose to be sodomized like this:
"customers incensed over premium increases of 30% to 39%"
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,3002094.story
year after year after year.
As dreams? Maybe.
Obviously there's the inevitable downside: at some point you have to wake up. Some European countries are dealing with it right now.
If you'd drop your myopic, partisan hackery, you and I could actually agree on a few things. However, for every cogent post you generate, you post 100 asinine talking points like that.
We're not in Europe.
Obviously? Inevitable? Please.
The sly use of question begging (obviously and inevitable) marks out all potential critics as unreasonable or ignorant. I do find it odd how often mogrovejo resorts to this trope.
agenda teflon
It looks like another rhetorial crutch.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
