|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 9, 2009 14:14:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 9, 2009 16:15:51 GMT -8
Interesting! Some of those other links at the end of the piece are pretty interesting also. One big question that everyone should ask themselves is if they would be comfortable having a unelected bureaucrat making life and death rationing decisions about their health and the health of their loved ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 10, 2009 9:31:46 GMT -8
It is refreshing to read an article from a person who has actually read the bills. His criticism is based on his views of economic theory, the free market, and not talking points set out by the wing-nuts.
I read most of his articles and can see many of his points. That doesn't mean I agree with him though.
I disagree with his assumption that 2/3 of all American Workers are covered by employer paid healthcare. And based upon that, many of his numbers just don't add up.
I also disagree that employers would pass the money currently used to pay insurance premiums directly on to their employees as pay.
Under his plan, premiums for people with pre-existing conditions would jump at least 50%.
He does not mention how those who currently do not have employer paid insurance will benefit in any way. If they cannot afford to pay for it now they won't be able to pay for it then.
He also uses the same argument that was used when the right was championing privatizing social security. Personal responsibility. It is great in theory but as we well know, many people are NOT responsible adults and never will be. These are the guys that will take all of the 'extra' money and blow it instead of buying insurance, etc. When the time comes and they are sick, they don't have a means to pay for healthcare so what do they do? They go to the ER and we all pay for it. The guy isn't going to be turned away. Unfortunately, there are times where we do need a 'big brother'.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 10, 2009 9:50:24 GMT -8
It is refreshing to read an article from a person who has actually read the bills. His criticism is based on his views of economic theory, the free market, and not talking points set out by the wing-nuts. I read most of his articles and can see many of his points. That doesn't mean I agree with him though. I disagree with his assumption that 2/3 of all American Workers are covered by employer paid healthcare. And based upon that, many of his numbers just don't add up. I also disagree that employers would pass the money currently used to pay insurance premiums directly on to their employees as pay. Under his plan, premiums for people with pre-existing conditions would jump at least 50%. He does not mention how those who currently do not have employer paid insurance will benefit in any way. If they cannot afford to pay for it now they won't be able to pay for it then. He also uses the same argument that was used when the right was championing privatizing social security. Personal responsibility. It is great in theory but as we well know, many people are NOT responsible adults and never will be. These are the guys that will take all of the 'extra' money and blow it instead of buying insurance, etc. When the time comes and they are sick, they don't have a means to pay for healthcare so what do they do? They go to the ER and we all pay for it. The guy isn't going to be turned away. Unfortunately, there are times where we do need a 'big brother'. If the Congress passes a bill requiring every adult to have health insurance, some current problems should go away. (As a libertarian I am not completely comfortable with that idea, but it may ultimately be for the best.) For one thing, citizens would not blow their "extra money" rather than buy health insurance any more than they now fail to pay for auto insurance because they visited the bar or the track too often. AzWm |
|
cx4
New Recruit
Posts: 21
|
Post by cx4 on Sept 14, 2009 12:49:21 GMT -8
I have to agree with AlwayAnAztec on this one. Initially I was for privatizing social security but have changed my mind since. For an example, I have an adult step daughter who along with her husband spend all their money on any and all adult toys. She has stated bluntly to me that "I am living for today and don't care about tomorrow". They don't have a nickel saved. She recently asked for and got the mortgage modification ( thanks Obama) from her bank. The bank lowered her mortgage interest rate to 4% and forgave $160,000 of the loan. The 160k was essentially the money she obtained by refinancing her property to buy a new motorhome, dune buggy and buggy trailer, dirt bike, speed boat with all the bells and whistles, speed boat trailer, a large in-ground pool and vacations with the motorhome with everything in tow. Guess what, the bank didn't ask that she sell any of the toys to reduce the loan!!!
Another gentleman I know, who is in his late fifties and owns a successful business, has not saved a dime for retirement and will consequently have to work all his remaining life (this is according to him). I have met many more examples of ordinary folks demonstrating irresponsible financial behavior.
So will voluntary health insurance work if not required, I am inclined to think not. Would privatization of social security have worked, I think not. These are the people who will be begging for assistance down the road and what can we do then? Guess we will have to dig deeper into our pockets!!
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 14, 2009 13:15:16 GMT -8
I have to agree with AlwayAnAztec on this one. Initially I was for privatizing social security but have changed my mind since. For an example, I have an adult step daughter who along with her husband spend all their money on any and all adult toys. She has stated bluntly to me that "I am living for today and don't care about tomorrow". They don't have a nickel saved. She recently asked for and got the mortgage modification ( thanks Obama) from her bank. The bank lowered her mortgage interest rate to 4% and forgave $160,000 of the loan. The 160k was essentially the money she obtained by refinancing her property to buy a new motorhome, dune buggy and buggy trailer, dirt bike, speed boat with all the bells and whistles, speed boat trailer, a large in-ground pool and vacations with the motorhome with everything in tow. Guess what, the bank didn't ask that she sell any of the toys to reduce the loan!!! Another gentleman I know, who is in his late fifties and owns a successful business, has not saved a dime for retirement and will consequently have to work all his remaining life (this is according to him). I have met many more examples of ordinary folks demonstrating irresponsible financial behavior. So will voluntary health insurance work if not required, I am inclined to think not. Would privatization of social security have worked, I think not. These are the people who will be begging for assistance down the road and what can we do then? Guess we will have to dig deeper into our pockets!! Sorry, but people who are that irresponsible can just EFF OFF and DIE as far as I care. I don't want one cent of my taxes going to support their hedonism. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 16, 2009 17:19:40 GMT -8
If Max Baucus, the worst of the worst whores to the insurance industry sees his bill passed, most every American who isn't an executive for the health insurance industry will be a loser. Personally I think he spent 3 months "negotiating" with the Republicans so the insurance industry had the time to write his POS bill.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 17, 2009 9:50:25 GMT -8
You will note that no Republicans or Democrats were standing with him when he announced his bill. Does that mean he has no support?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 17, 2009 17:17:16 GMT -8
You will note that no Republicans or Democrats were standing with him when he announced his bill. Does that mean he has no support? Yes, that was interesting, wasn't it? Symbols are important, and you would think that if others involved in the negotiations supported the plan he presented, the Sen. would have every one of them at his side. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 17, 2009 18:09:27 GMT -8
You will note that no Republicans or Democrats were standing with him when he announced his bill. Does that mean he has no support? Damn little. He'll have to work like a bat outta Hell to get that POS out of committee. But hey, he's stood up and offered what he can to the health care industry that has given him more bucks than any other Senator or Congressman. I have no doubt at all that this is an insurance industry written bill. The sad part is that he probably brings home enough pork that his constituents will vote against their best interests and reelect him. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2009 10:39:11 GMT -8
I found out a couple things that were of interest on the Health Care/Health Insurance topic. Administrative costs in Japan are about 6% of health care costs. It is about 20% here in the US. Coverage for a man and his wife in Japan are $80. I play golf once a week with a retired Japanese Diplomat. One thing I did not ask or he did not offer was if that eighty bucks was just his portion or was it partially covered by the Diplomatic Corps. He lives here but carries his insurance in Japan. They pay the small costs when they visit a clinic here and take care of anything big that happens by returning home.
I also read where even in Canada the administrative cost is only five percent of the total cost.
That is a good place to start along with the tort reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 18, 2009 13:30:05 GMT -8
I found out a couple things that were of interest on the Health Care/Health Insurance topic. Administrative costs in Japan are about 6% of health care costs. It is about 20% here in the US. Coverage for a man and his wife in Japan are $80. I play golf once a week with a retired Japanese Diplomat. One thing I did not ask or he did not offer was if that eighty bucks was just his portion or was it partially covered by the Diplomatic Corps. He lives here but carries his insurance in Japan. They pay the small costs when they visit a clinic here and take care of anything big that happens by returning home. I also read where even in Canada the administrative cost is only five percent of the total cost. That is a good place to start along with the tort reform. A quote from the Congressional Budget Office, “Designing a Premium Support System for Medicare,” November 2006, 12. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage.16 This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.
(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.) I had thought that the administrative costs for Medicare were in the 3 - 4 percent range. Also, in regard to private insurance. The administrative costs of 20% + do not include profit. When you add in the profit percentage, the total dollar amount going to the healthcare provider is approximatly 50 cents on the premium dollar. That is a far cry from the 95 cents on the dollar medicare provides. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2009 14:13:57 GMT -8
I found out a couple things that were of interest on the Health Care/Health Insurance topic. Administrative costs in Japan are about 6% of health care costs. It is about 20% here in the US. Coverage for a man and his wife in Japan are $80. I play golf once a week with a retired Japanese Diplomat. One thing I did not ask or he did not offer was if that eighty bucks was just his portion or was it partially covered by the Diplomatic Corps. He lives here but carries his insurance in Japan. They pay the small costs when they visit a clinic here and take care of anything big that happens by returning home. I also read where even in Canada the administrative cost is only five percent of the total cost. That is a good place to start along with the tort reform. A quote from the Congressional Budget Office, “Designing a Premium Support System for Medicare,” November 2006, 12. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage.16 This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.
(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.) I had thought that the administrative costs for Medicare were in the 3 - 4 percent range. Also, in regard to private insurance. The administrative costs of 20% + do not include profit. When you add in the profit percentage, the total dollar amount going to the healthcare provider is approximatly 50 cents on the premium dollar. That is a far cry from the 95 cents on the dollar medicare provides. Now how do you address that problem? I hate to get into government regulation and the idea of any government option is the first step toward rationing and cutting quality and therefore to be avoided. The new plan unfolded with no support is claimed by =Bob to have been written by Health Insurance folks. I don't know if that is true, but if it is it just points out how inept our Congress has become. I don't see an easy answer that would not be a bigger problem down the road without going after this issue one item at a time. Start with the streamlining of the administrative side of Health Insurance or well thought out tort reform and see where that leads us. Might also attack the fraud, waste and abuse that appears to be a significant problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 18, 2009 15:28:30 GMT -8
I found out a couple things that were of interest on the Health Care/Health Insurance topic. Administrative costs in Japan are about 6% of health care costs. It is about 20% here in the US. Coverage for a man and his wife in Japan are $80. I play golf once a week with a retired Japanese Diplomat. One thing I did not ask or he did not offer was if that eighty bucks was just his portion or was it partially covered by the Diplomatic Corps. He lives here but carries his insurance in Japan. They pay the small costs when they visit a clinic here and take care of anything big that happens by returning home. I also read where even in Canada the administrative cost is only five percent of the total cost. That is a good place to start along with the tort reform. I cannot claim to be all that much of an expert on health insurance administrative costs, but it seems to me that those "costs" are actually profits. It's very easy for any corporation to claim administrative costs in order to pad its profit margin. But it's also a function of doctors having to employ people who are conversant in all health care plans and filling out the massive paperwork that's required by those plans (which, in general, look for ways to deny coverage for major health issues). WRT to the Canadians, I go by my bro-in-law, rather than my wife, as she's lived here for 18 years. Her brother cannot believe how much we pay for health insurance - at this point, it's around 33 percent of my retirement check. Yeah, it's covered by taxes in Canada, but nobody there goes bankrupt from medical bills. And as I've stated in the past, I will happily embrace tort reform if the reform requires insurance companies to reduce, dollar for dollar, the savings they get from tort reform. Put that in a bill and listen to them squeal. The only reason they want tort reform is to build their profit margins. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 19, 2009 6:54:01 GMT -8
I found out a couple things that were of interest on the Health Care/Health Insurance topic. Administrative costs in Japan are about 6% of health care costs. It is about 20% here in the US. Coverage for a man and his wife in Japan are $80. I play golf once a week with a retired Japanese Diplomat. One thing I did not ask or he did not offer was if that eighty bucks was just his portion or was it partially covered by the Diplomatic Corps. He lives here but carries his insurance in Japan. They pay the small costs when they visit a clinic here and take care of anything big that happens by returning home. I also read where even in Canada the administrative cost is only five percent of the total cost. That is a good place to start along with the tort reform. I cannot claim to be all that much of an expert on health insurance administrative costs, but it seems to me that those "costs" are actually profits. It's very easy for any corporation to claim administrative costs in order to pad its profit margin. But it's also a function of doctors having to employ people who are conversant in all health care plans and filling out the massive paperwork that's required by those plans (which, in general, look for ways to deny coverage for major health issues). WRT to the Canadians, I go by my bro-in-law, rather than my wife, as she's lived here for 18 years. Her brother cannot believe how much we pay for health insurance - at this point, it's around 33 percent of my retirement check. Yeah, it's covered by taxes in Canada, but nobody there goes bankrupt from medical bills. And as I've stated in the past, I will happily embrace tort reform if the reform requires insurance companies to reduce, dollar for dollar, the savings they get from tort reform. Put that in a bill and listen to them squeal. The only reason they want tort reform is to build their profit margins. =Bob As you can see, it is not an easy issue. How do you maintain quality and availability and at the same time cut cost and widen coverage? I think ObamaKare is dead for this year after seeing what the good Senator from Montana came up with. He has no support and every time Obama comes out with something what little support there was erodes. I will be interesting to see what "The One" has to say tomorrow. |
|
