The United States is broke!

[Extra Stout]

$4 a gallon is going to ruin America? Dan, you are absurd. We're at $3 a gallon right now and demand isn't even being abated.

Of course, your prediction there will just go down the memory hole, and the one in 50 you ever get right you will trumpet for years as a sterling example of your prescience.

You are such a fraud.

[RandomGuy]

How in the world can you say this when the sole reason why the US is broke is because of MEDICARE, A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH PLAN.


Are you saying adding everyone to Medicare is going to make things better because the government is more effecient than private insurance companies?

Yup.

Thousands of private insurance companies are less efficient than a single payer system.

Those thousands of companies force providers' (doctors/hospitals) administrative costs through the roof.

Thousands of private insurance companies also mean that each of the 50 states has seperate laws that govern insurance and so forth.

SOOOO

You not only get a lot of duplication of effort, de-centralized processing, you get a lot of waste because you can't easily transport your health care from place to place.


ALL of this waste comes out of your pocket anyways in a myriad of ways, but you simply don't see them.

[RandomGuy]

$4 a gallon is going to ruin America? Dan, you are absurd. We're at $3 a gallon right now and demand isn't even being abated.

Of course, your prediction there will just go down the memory hole, and the one in 50 you ever get right you will trumpet for years as a sterling example of your prescience.

You are such a fraud.

Expensive fuel will have a host of repercussions, but will not be so ruinous as some on the left seem to think.

Free market economies can be remarkably adaptable. Higher fuel costs will make alternative energy sources more compe ive, they will force efficiency gains as our economy finally takes a hard look at how to do so.

Along the way, we will discover new technologies, invest in new capital infrastructure, and figure out that not using the energy in the first place makes more economic sense than mindlessly using it.

Not that everything will be roses, but it will hardly be the "end of the world", either.

[RandomGuy]

$4 a gallon is going to ruin America? Dan, you are absurd. We're at $3 a gallon right now and demand isn't even being abated.

Of course, your prediction there will just go down the memory hole, and the one in 50 you ever get right you will trumpet for years as a sterling example of your prescience.

You are such a fraud.

Some of the big losers will be the land speculators that tend to buy land in rings around cities to profit from the expansion as cities sprawl.

Cities will become more dense, and probably even tend to get a bit smaller in surface area, over the long term of 10-40 years.

This will mean that services like police and fire, power, and water can all be provided more efficiently, as well as making mass transit MUCH more economically viable.

Like it or not, we will be reducing our greenhouse gas emissions through sheer market action.

[RandomGuy]

Oh and by the way, all those nasty oil imports suck tens of billions of dollars out of our economy every year.

More local renewables mean not only will this money not leave the economy, money will be invested in the types of capital projects that provide for economic growth.

Again, not that higher fuel prices won't suck AND tend to make everything more expensive, but on the balance it is not all doom and gloom.

[RandomGuy]

a model of efficiency

You forgot a step in that chain:

insurance company pays investors out of the premium they charge

I am *sure* that makes insurance cheaper, right?

[2centsworth]

You forgot a step in that chain:

insurance company pays investors out of the premium they charge

I am *sure* that makes insurance cheaper, right?

So would eliminating all profits from the equation make it all better?

[RandomGuy]

So would eliminating all profits from the equation make it all better?

Not what I am implying at all. The profit margin of insurance companies is simply part of the extra health care costs that we all pay.

If the goal is to provide health care, then things that tend to add expense reduce the amount of health care that can be provided.

[01Snake]

The system we have now has seen an explosion in administrative costs, the majority of which are due to massive insurance company, hospital, and provider (read: doctor) administrative costs, that could be MUCH more simply shifted to the government.

A huge cost is the malpractice insurance for physicians.

[xrayzebra]

RG and Elpimp. Please explain to me how government is
going to handle this more efficiently? You mean like medicare,
medicaid and welfare. Or as you like to point out any number
of federal agencies.

[boutons_]

for-profit health care is bull .

The next administration will take a run at universal health care. Edwards has some clear ideas, a little timid,but nobody else has said anything. A large majority of Americans and corps are now for universal health care.

[2centsworth]

Not what I am implying at all. The profit margin of insurance companies is simply part of the extra health care costs that we all pay.

If the goal is to provide health care, then things that tend to add expense reduce the amount of health care that can be provided.

what's the incentive to provide quality health care?

Also, don't prudent business people try to minimize expenses to boost profits. Without profits, what's the incentive to be effecient?

[xrayzebra]

for-profit health care is bull .

The next administration will take a run an universal health care. Edwards has some clear ideas, a little timid,but nobody else has said anything. A large majority of Americans and corps are now for universal health care.

Want to point out the benefits of health care in countries
where they have universal health care?

[RandomGuy]

A huge cost is the malpractice insurance for physicians.

A huge cost to be sure. I personally am not privvy to the normal expense breakdowns of the average doctor's office, so I am unable to give any numbers.

I have seen studies of the number of administrative workers per doctor and how that has exploded over time, this is what I base my claim of larger administrative costs.

Health care costs are NOT exactly my area of expertise, but I *do* know a bit about insurance.

[RandomGuy]

what's the incentive to provide quality health care?

Also, don't prudent business people try to minimize expenses to boost profits. Without profits, what's the incentive to be effecient?

The incentive to provide quality health care is that if you don't provide it, then your patients go elsewhere. This is NOT the government directly employing doctors and running hospitals.

While we are talking about insurance companies being efficient and minimizing expenses...

minimize expenses=deny/weasel out of as many claims as possible?

minimize expenses=pay as little on valid claims as possible?

minimize expenses=have as few staff on hand as possible to process claims?

I can think of no few people who have gone bankrupt (or worse) because of insurance companies "minimization of expenses".

[RandomGuy]

Want to point out the benefits of health care in countries
where they have universal health care?

Universal health care tends to make the ultimate costs of unhealthy behavior a LOT more transparent.

You pay for all of this now, but you just don't see it because it is tucked away in everything you buy and all the premiums you pay.

When a person goes to the hospital emergency room and can't pay, how does that hospital recoup those costs if they aren't reimbursed by the government?

(hint: it rhymes with "swill the insurance companies smore"

Who ultimately pays for that ER trip? You do.

The big benefit from a cost standpoint is the fact that universal health care will tend to make cheaper preventive medicine more available, so that the more expensive curative stuff can be avoided.

It is cheaper to treat just about any disease earlier than it is later, or better yet head it off to begin with.

[RandomGuy]

You can pay for health care through increased mortality rates, private premiums that have to cover the uncovered anyways, and all the hidden costs, or you can pay for it up front through taxed premiums and a universal, single payer system.

Will there be some burocratic bloat? Surely, just as there is now.
Will it be expensive in terms of premiums? Surely, just is it is now.

BUT

There are some good economic arguments to be made that point to a strong possibility that it will ultimately reduce costs for the system as a whole.
That and the fact that we get all the costs out in the open where they can be dealt with from a position of knowledge and information is something I am all for.

[01Snake]

The current system is full of problems but universal healthcare won't be any better.

[RandomGuy]

The current system is full of problems but universal healthcare won't be any better.

How so?

[BradLohaus]

It has almost happened before.

A handful of wealthy families, including the Morgans, Chases, Du Ponts, and Johnsons, attempted a coup against FDR in the early 1930's as the Depression bottomed out, in order to ins ute fascism in the United States. Their allies had infiltrated the military, but the general they called upon to execute the coup blew the whistle on them.

The coup has thwarted, and the matter was referred to Congress. Of course, since rich and powerful people were responsible for the treason, Congress swept it all under the rug.

Wow I've never heard of that. I'll have to look into it. I can believe it though because the list of families are some of the largest shareholders of the largest banks that make up the Federal Reserve system, which had just caused the Great Depression. (Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that the Fed accidently caused the Great Depression in a speech while Greenspan was still in charge.) Or maybe it was no accident. I wouldn't put anything past those snakes.

[BradLohaus]

Insurance is like a casino in a way - it's a numbers racket, except the casino has to pay you when your number comes up, but an insurance company can try to get out of paying what they owe you. It works both ways to an extent with insurance fraud I suppose.

I took a course on the health insurance industry as an undergrad and I really don't have a clue what would be the best way. The professor said he didn't know either, and he was an econ PhD who worked for the American Dental Association researching this stuff for 30 years.

I'll say this much: it doesn't surprise me how much all of this costs because keeping people alive gets harder the older they get for the most part, and we just keep getting older as a nation. Health insurance and treatment is only going to get more expensive however we do it. I think socialized medicine is inevitable because to stop it you have to stop it every time; you only have to implement it once. Just like Social Security ain't going nowhere. Once socialized medicine arrives in the U.S. then thats it. We'd better make damn sure that it's the best way and that it isn't going to tap us out or put a damper on R&D. I have my doubts.

[ggoose25]

what's the incentive to provide quality health care?

Also, don't prudent business people try to minimize expenses to boost profits. Without profits, what's the incentive to be effecient?

the wellbeing of the sick. doctors take oaths to treat regardless of ability to pay. healthcare shouldnt be about making money, it should be a bout running and efficient system of care

[RandomGuy]

The current system is full of problems but universal healthcare won't be any better.

How so?

[boutons_]

"the megabucks aren't bringing people to the polls"

no, but "research shows" that negative ads work well to influence sheeple/rabble/dumb s who do go to the polls.

What people vote is their pocket books first and always. Esp how their pocket books are affected by locally delivered pork and earmarks.

Some people do vote their ideology ("Christians" voting for "right to life" "Christians" but end up electing murderous, lying, US-military-disrespecting war-mongers).

The US doesn't got to the polls (low %age vs eg. Europe) because a comfortable life and $$$ for most people, combined with the disconnect between a huge country of 300M and DC/Beltway, have seduced many/most people into believing that politics doesn't count in their lives.

[101A]

As it is, I wonder if the time value of money factored into those calculations?

Not that we shouldn't be worried, but I am not entirely sure the calculations are entirely accurate.



Good. Thanks.

Troubling indeed.

All the more reason to start on universal health care. A single payor system would really put a HUGE dent in spirally health costs.

Nope.

Spiraling health care costs come from a single thing: Sick People - and the expensive cures (or "heroic" attempts at cures) that our healthcare system charges for them.

We have reduced people that die from heart attacks.

Great.

Heart attacks are cheap deaths, however.

Cancer is a very expensive way to die.

There are alot more cancers now (angioplasties, cholesterol lowering meds,etc) are too blame more than anything else - not that they cause it, they just ALLOW people to live long enough to get it.

Baby boomers are getting older; taking more and more meds, getting sicker...THAT is why healthcare costs are skyrocketing!!! That's why they were so cheap in the 70's! - the baby boomers (spelled bulk of the economy), were young and healthy, and their parents and grandparents were dying of relatively inexpensive things. In the meantime, the insurance companies were charging cheap premiums, the baby boomers were PAYING cheap premiums, all was good. NOW there aren't as many of us, to pay for all of them gettting VERY sick (Chemo, radiation = $$$$$$$$$), plus all of the meds these people take to just make the baseline costs month to month high...

Doesn't matter how you pay for it; private, public, a mix...it's GONNA be expensive!!!

I'm pretty sure, however, that it WON"T be CHEAPER if the govt. (the one responsible for the mess we're in that this thread is based on), is MORE involved. Just a guess.