|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 20, 2013 11:23:44 GMT -8
Many on the Left want the government to take over the entire health insurance industry. I have never heard any of them explain what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the insurance companies. Or to the investors who would be wiped out if the feds nationalized health insurance.
Does anybody know if those who think health care (but not the food supply) should be nationalized have explained what will happen to those workers and investors? (I am willing to believe that they have not even thought about this question, but you never know. I suppose "Tough luck" might be a popular attitude among those who believe that health insurance companies are blood-sucking leaches.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 20, 2013 14:10:26 GMT -8
Many on the Left want the government to take over the entire health insurance industry. I have never heard any of them explain what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the insurance companies. Or to the investors who would be wiped out if the feds nationalized health insurance. Does anybody know if those who think health care (but not the food supply) should be nationalized have explained what will happen to those workers and investors? (I am willing to believe that they have not even thought about this question, but you never know. I suppose "Tough luck" might be a popular attitude among those who believe that health insurance companies are blood-sucking leaches.) AzWm How is medicare working out for you? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 21, 2013 8:50:19 GMT -8
Many on the Left want the government to take over the entire health insurance industry. I have never heard any of them explain what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the insurance companies. Or to the investors who would be wiped out if the feds nationalized health insurance. Does anybody know if those who think health care (but not the food supply) should be nationalized have explained what will happen to those workers and investors? (I am willing to believe that they have not even thought about this question, but you never know. I suppose "Tough luck" might be a popular attitude among those who believe that health insurance companies are blood-sucking leaches.) AzWm How is medicare working out for you? Good question with no simple answer. For me, combined with Tricare, it is fine at present. For my Doctor and his peers, not so much. With constantly reducing reimbursement rates to help fund obamakare among other things it is just a matter of time till Medicare will make those of us using it suffer. Here is a little antidote for you. My wife went to an eye doctor on Thursday in the same network that we always use. This office wanted a copay of $40 bucks. When it was pointed out that another eye doctor in the same network did not try to get that copay, they relented. I let them get out gracefully when they said they would just bill insurance that amount. You can see where I could have made it uncomfortable for the doctor by showing that I understood what he was doing. I did not, because I see he is being squeezed by the system. When I see him driving a car and living in a home that indicate real suffering, I will cough up the extra money. Sound like a contradiction? Don't we mostly look out for our own best interests? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 21, 2013 10:40:15 GMT -8
Many on the Left want the government to take over the entire health insurance industry. I have never heard any of them explain what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the insurance companies. Or to the investors who would be wiped out if the feds nationalized health insurance. Does anybody know if those who think health care (but not the food supply) should be nationalized have explained what will happen to those workers and investors? (I am willing to believe that they have not even thought about this question, but you never know. I suppose "Tough luck" might be a popular attitude among those who believe that health insurance companies are blood-sucking leaches.) AzWm How is medicare working out for you? I'm just really puzzled by your non-response. Why did you bother to post it? Please reread my thread intro and think about responding to it. My question was a serious one and I am eager to learn how it might be answered by people who take the time to consider it thoughtfully AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 22, 2013 7:50:44 GMT -8
How is medicare working out for you? I'm just really puzzled by your non-response. Why did you bother to post it? Please reread my thread intro and think about responding to it. My question was a serious one and I am eager to learn how it might be answered by people who take the time to consider it thoughtfully AzWm Your question is too tough for those who can not make a case for their preferred outlook or outcome. That is why your question is answered with an inane question. I can see how a single payer system could work but it would entail a lot of work in the areas of getting only those contributing able to participate and wringing waste out of the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 22, 2013 8:40:11 GMT -8
Many on the Left want the government to take over the entire health insurance industry. I have never heard any of them explain what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the insurance companies. Or to the investors who would be wiped out if the feds nationalized health insurance. Does anybody know if those who think health care (but not the food supply) should be nationalized have explained what will happen to those workers and investors? (I am willing to believe that they have not even thought about this question, but you never know. I suppose "Tough luck" might be a popular attitude among those who believe that health insurance companies are blood-sucking leaches.) AzWm If we went to a single payer system many of the mid-level and below employees would find work administrating the new program. The sales force would find new sales jobs. The ones at the top of the heap could retire on their savings, or find work elsewhere. I am sure they are talented people. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 22, 2013 11:26:38 GMT -8
Many on the Left want the government to take over the entire health insurance industry. I have never heard any of them explain what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the insurance companies. Or to the investors who would be wiped out if the feds nationalized health insurance. Does anybody know if those who think health care (but not the food supply) should be nationalized have explained what will happen to those workers and investors? (I am willing to believe that they have not even thought about this question, but you never know. I suppose "Tough luck" might be a popular attitude among those who believe that health insurance companies are blood-sucking leaches.) AzWm If we went to a single payer system many of the mid-level and below employees would find work administrating the new program. The sales force would find new sales jobs. The ones at the top of the heap could retire on their savings, or find work elsewhere. I am sure they are talented people. Your responses seem too facile to me, but at least you tried. As for the mid level people, most would be middle aged folks who would probably find it very tough to find jobs even close to the pay they had been receiving. Especially if the Obama Economy, with 29 hour work week's and effective unemployment of over 10%, becomes the norm. (It's one thing to have to have to hunt for a job when your company has failed in the market place. It's another to be on the street because your government has, in effect, seized your industry without compensation.) Also, what about the stock holders of the for-profit insurance companies? I'm still betting that the Left, in general, would likely shrug and say "tough luck." That's what they told the bond holders of GM! And, let's not forget, investors are often middle class people instead of the fat-cats the Left likes to pillory. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 22, 2013 13:42:59 GMT -8
Actually, the reason we do not have a single payer was to protect the insurance companys. Another name for ACA might be the Health Insurance Company Full Employment Act.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 23, 2013 8:43:00 GMT -8
Actually, the reason we do not have a single payer was to protect the insurance companys. Another name for ACA might be the Health Insurance Company Full Employment Act. Bingo! |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 27, 2013 9:44:09 GMT -8
Actually, the reason we do not have a single payer was to protect the insurance companys. Another name for ACA might be the Health Insurance Company Full Employment Act. Perhaps, but once again I see no desire on your part to tackle the questions I raised in this thread. I'll repeat; Does the Left plan on compensating the stock-holders who stand to lose their investments if the government takes over health insurance? And do they plan on guaranteeing the workers jobs? AzLWm |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 27, 2013 10:35:47 GMT -8
I'll repeat; Does the Left plan on compensating the stock-holders who stand to lose their investments if the government takes over health insurance? And do they plan on guaranteeing the workers jobs? This is a silly argument. The United States' public spending on health care is higher than any other country in the world, and the quality of care we get isn't in the top 10. You don't think it is the government's place to institute a minimum wage, but it is their place to compensate stock-holders and guarantee jobs? Private insurance would never go by the wayside, but it would have to be fundamentally reformed to have patients in mind before stockholders - as health care should be. So to directly answer your question - No. No to compensating stockholders and no to guaranteeing jobs. As Charles Munger says, "Suck it in and cope, buddy. Suck it in and cope." |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 27, 2013 13:17:37 GMT -8
Actually, the reason we do not have a single payer was to protect the insurance companys. Another name for ACA might be the Health Insurance Company Full Employment Act. Perhaps, but once again I see no desire on your part to tackle the questions I raised in this thread. I'll repeat; Does the Left plan on compensating the stock-holders who stand to lose their investments if the government takes over health insurance? And do they plan on guaranteeing the workers jobs? AzLWm If you think it is an issue, William, sell your shares now. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Oct 29, 2013 0:42:44 GMT -8
Many on the Left want the government to take over the entire health insurance industry. I have never heard any of them explain what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the insurance companies. Or to the investors who would be wiped out if the feds nationalized health insurance. Does anybody know if those who think health care (but not the food supply) should be nationalized have explained what will happen to those workers and investors? (I am willing to believe that they have not even thought about this question, but you never know. I suppose "Tough luck" might be a popular attitude among those who believe that health insurance companies are blood-sucking leaches.) AzWm I was watching an episode of Scrubs (great tv show), and it made me think... You have advocated many times for tort/malpractice reform. Please answer your questions with malpractice lawyers in mind instead of health insurance workers, should your proposed reforms be enacted. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 29, 2013 6:38:00 GMT -8
I'll repeat; Does the Left plan on compensating the stock-holders who stand to lose their investments if the government takes over health insurance? And do they plan on guaranteeing the workers jobs? This is a silly argument. The United States' public spending on health care is higher than any other country in the world, and the quality of care we get isn't in the top 10. You don't think it is the government's place to institute a minimum wage, but it is their place to compensate stock-holders and guarantee jobs? Private insurance would never go by the wayside, but it would have to be fundamentally reformed to have patients in mind before stockholders - as health care should be. So to directly answer your question - No. No to compensating stockholders and no to guaranteeing jobs. As Charles Munger says, "Suck it in and cope, buddy. Suck it in and cope." Funny, but I think William is aware of how he can hedge if he does in fact own shares in companies that might be affected should a single payer system be forged. I am afraid that the probable outcome would be a net increase in jobs overall should government undertake such a task. Just look at the Dept. of Energy, Commerce, and Education who employ thousands of folks who accomplish nothing. They are on an endless treadmill to oblivion. The present workers in Insurance companies would more than be absorbed by the new bureaucracy. No need to worry about them, it is the country as a whole that is in deep kimchee should such a thing happen. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsu2000 on Oct 30, 2013 7:32:27 GMT -8
The ACA is just a transition to the single payer system. It's far to early to tell if the ACA will be successful or not. There's going to be ups and downs but probably around 2017-2020 we'll see the reality of what affect the ACA had on our country. But once people are enrolled on a government plan I believe the government has the responsibility to each person to offer a plan until each person passes away. So, it seems almost impossible to remove the ACA at this point in time unless another government healthcare system is offered up which to me shows we are just one step closer to the single payer system which was Obama's goal early on in his political career.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdgaucho on Oct 30, 2013 8:47:59 GMT -8
I'll repeat; Does the Left plan on compensating the stock-holders who stand to lose their investments if the government takes over health insurance? And do they plan on guaranteeing the workers jobs? This is a silly argument. The United States' public spending on health care is higher than any other country in the world, and the quality of care we get isn't in the top 10. You don't think it is the government's place to institute a minimum wage, but it is their place to compensate stock-holders and guarantee jobs? Private insurance would never go by the wayside, but it would have to be fundamentally reformed to have patients in mind before stockholders - as health care should be. So to directly answer your question - No. No to compensating stockholders and no to guaranteeing jobs. As Charles Munger says, "Suck it in and cope, buddy. Suck it in and cope." Bingo!! You're going to have a tough time selling me that I need to worry about the insurance companies. The US healthcare system is a joke, we spend thousands of dollars on things that should cost hundreds of dollars. Not sure if the ACA is the answer, but what we've currently got is garbage compared to what we spend on it. Sent from my SCH-I545 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 1, 2013 10:59:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Nov 1, 2013 15:59:02 GMT -8
But once people are enrolled on a government plan I believe the government has the responsibility to each person to offer a plan until each person passes away. So, it seems almost impossible to remove the ACA at this point in time unless another government healthcare system is offered up which to me shows we are just one step closer to the single payer system which was Obama's goal early on in his political career. Unless you are talking about Medicaid, which has nothing to do with the ACA, there is no "government plan". That's the public option that was in Obama's platform / why he got elected. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 2, 2013 9:27:45 GMT -8
But once people are enrolled on a government plan I believe the government has the responsibility to each person to offer a plan until each person passes away. So, it seems almost impossible to remove the ACA at this point in time unless another government healthcare system is offered up which to me shows we are just one step closer to the single payer system which was Obama's goal early on in his political career. Unless you are talking about Medicaid, which has nothing to do with the ACA, there is no "government plan". That's the public option that was in Obama's platform / why he got elected. When the government forces you to sign up for a plan that conforms or pay a fine it is a government plan. When you are talking about making working folks pay full price and subsidizing poor or non-working folks it is a government plan. Even worse it is a thinly disguised redistribution of wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Nov 2, 2013 9:35:57 GMT -8
Unless you are talking about Medicaid, which has nothing to do with the ACA, there is no "government plan". That's the public option that was in Obama's platform / why he got elected. When the government forces you to sign up for a plan that conforms or pay a fine it is a government plan. When you are talking about making working folks pay full price and subsidizing poor or non-working folks it is a government plan. Even worse it is a thinly disguised redistribution of wealth. Wrong, wrong, and everything is a "redistribution of wealth". |
|
