|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 12, 2009 12:03:47 GMT -8
As a fiscal conservative who hates the Stateist movement in our country over the past 60 years, I have a plan where the Federal Government can compete in the Health Insurance field as Obama wants. But competing with the Federal Government in any endeavor is like an under water contest where one of the participants has scuba gear. The Federal Government can lose money forever - as we have seen. So to make it really a competition like Obama desires, we need a few rules: - The government plan must follow any rules they set for private insurance.
- The government plan is audited annually to determine their loss per insuree.
- Every private insurance company is paid annually by the Federal government under the following formula: Number of insurees the health insurer has times the Feds loss per insuree.
This would allow competition on a level playing field. Remember, level playing fields is something the Stateists are real keen about. Of course, the Feds want to insure folks who wouldn't pay or pay a reduced amount. Those folks can be taken out of the audit or added assuming a payment of the going Fed rate. At first I thought we could just mandate that the government not lose money but that is like asking the cat to not jump up on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 12, 2009 14:08:31 GMT -8
What I wonder is this. Are there any Democratic members of the Congress who do NOT understand that a private firm cannot, over time, compete with the government? Are they stupid, ignorant, or simply dishonest?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 12, 2009 16:19:49 GMT -8
What I wonder is this. Are there any Democratic members of the Congress who do NOT understand that a private firm cannot, over time, compete with the government? Are they stupid, ignorant, or simply dishonest? AzWm Okay. You've offered that sentiment over and over. Please explain to us why a for-profit corporation is incapable of competing with the Feds. I'm serious about this, Will. You keep bringing it up but so far all you've been able to offer is because the Feds don't need to make a profit, there is no competition. I have Kaiser and it's a non-profit organization. How would it be different than a public plan that is also non-profit? It would be different if it was free, but Obama has stated that it won't be free; there will be premiums to be paid. But what I really don't understand is this reliance upon health insurance companies that ration care and often drop people from coverage when they have a serious health crisis (the main reason I stay on Kaiser is because they don't do that). Will, you and your wife are on Medicare unless I'm mistaken. Tell the truth - do you really think any health insurance plan, other than maybe Kaiser, would consider giving you insurance for end of life care or for your wife to have the knee replacements she needs? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 12, 2009 17:43:04 GMT -8
What I wonder is this. Are there any Democratic members of the Congress who do NOT understand that a private firm cannot, over time, compete with the government? Are they stupid, ignorant, or simply dishonest? AzWm Okay. You've offered that sentiment over and over. Please explain to us why a for-profit corporation is incapable of competing with the Feds. I'm serious about this, Will. You keep bringing it up but so far all you've been able to offer is because the Feds don't need to make a profit, there is no competition. I have Kaiser and it's a non-profit organization. How would it be different than a public plan that is also non-profit? It would be different if it was free, but Obama has stated that it won't be free; there will be premiums to be paid. But what I really don't understand is this reliance upon health insurance companies that ration care and often drop people from coverage when they have a serious health crisis (the main reason I stay on Kaiser is because they don't do that). Will, you and your wife are on Medicare unless I'm mistaken. Tell the truth - do you really think any health insurance plan, other than maybe Kaiser, would consider giving you insurance for end of life care or for your wife to have the knee replacements she needs? =Bob The biggest point that you must digest is that government can hemorrhage money in the competition and then just charge the public in increased taxes. Private or non-profits can not lose money and stay in business. You can't compete with a government entity with pockets so deep that they will never run out of money and can hide how much they are underwater each year. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 14, 2009 11:42:01 GMT -8
Okay. You've offered that sentiment over and over. Please explain to us why a for-profit corporation is incapable of competing with the Feds. I'm serious about this, Will. You keep bringing it up but so far all you've been able to offer is because the Feds don't need to make a profit, there is no competition. I have Kaiser and it's a non-profit organization. How would it be different than a public plan that is also non-profit? It would be different if it was free, but Obama has stated that it won't be free; there will be premiums to be paid. But what I really don't understand is this reliance upon health insurance companies that ration care and often drop people from coverage when they have a serious health crisis (the main reason I stay on Kaiser is because they don't do that). Will, you and your wife are on Medicare unless I'm mistaken. Tell the truth - do you really think any health insurance plan, other than maybe Kaiser, would consider giving you insurance for end of life care or for your wife to have the knee replacements she needs? =Bob The biggest point that you must digest is that government can hemorrhage money in the competition and then just charge the public in increased taxes. Private or non-profits can not lose money and stay in business. You can't compete with a government entity with pockets so deep that they will never run out of money and can hide how much they are underwater each year. Exactly. That is why my plan described above is perfect. I would like to hear what problem conservatives have with that plan and what problem liberals have with the plan. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 14, 2009 14:25:57 GMT -8
As a fiscal conservative who hates the Stateist movement in our country over the past 60 years, I have a plan where the Federal Government can compete in the Health Insurance field as Obama wants. But competing with the Federal Government in any endeavor is like an under water contest where one of the participants has scuba gear. The Federal Government can lose money forever - as we have seen. So to make it really a competition like Obama desires, we need a few rules: - The government plan must follow any rules they set for private insurance.
- The government plan is audited annually to determine their loss per insuree.
- Every private insurance company is paid annually by the Federal government under the following formula: Number of insurees the health insurer has times the Feds loss per insuree.
This would allow competition on a level playing field. Remember, level playing fields is something the Stateists are real keen about. Of course, the Feds want to insure folks who wouldn't pay or pay a reduced amount. Those folks can be taken out of the audit or added assuming a payment of the going Fed rate. At first I thought we could just mandate that the government not lose money but that is like asking the cat to not jump up on the table. First of all, Bill, I have a bone to pick with you. It's because of YOU that I had to become Aztec WILLIAM instead of AztecBill. Very inconvienient! ;D (However, I have never really disliked the name William, and by now am used to it!) Okay, now to your plan. It won't work!!!!! Why not? Simple; WE CAN'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP ITS PROMISES!!!!! No matter how sensible your plan sounds, there is no way that the pols will let it fail. Political considerations will always intervene to distort the situation. Also, the body that must regulate the health care industry will also be running one of the competitors. Built-in conflict of interest. There is much that can be done to insure the uninsured without putting in place a plan that virtually guarantees a built-in advantage for a government competitor. This post is also designed as a response to Bob, who seems not to understand that, to cite an example, a figuring skating judge has a natural conflict of interest when one of his daughters is competing in the competition. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 15, 2009 10:20:22 GMT -8
Okay. You've offered that sentiment over and over. Please explain to us why a for-profit corporation is incapable of competing with the Feds. I'm serious about this, Will. You keep bringing it up but so far all you've been able to offer is because the Feds don't need to make a profit, there is no competition. I have Kaiser and it's a non-profit organization. How would it be different than a public plan that is also non-profit? It would be different if it was free, but Obama has stated that it won't be free; there will be premiums to be paid. But what I really don't understand is this reliance upon health insurance companies that ration care and often drop people from coverage when they have a serious health crisis (the main reason I stay on Kaiser is because they don't do that). Will, you and your wife are on Medicare unless I'm mistaken. Tell the truth - do you really think any health insurance plan, other than maybe Kaiser, would consider giving you insurance for end of life care or for your wife to have the knee replacements she needs? =Bob The biggest point that you must digest is that government can hemorrhage money in the competition and then just charge the public in increased taxes. Private or non-profits can not lose money and stay in business. You can't compete with a government entity with pockets so deep that they will never run out of money and can hide how much they are underwater each year. I'm well aware of that point. I simply do not agree with it. Well run companies do manage to compete with government. However, I have listed what I'd be willing to accept in place of government run plan. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 15, 2009 14:15:47 GMT -8
The biggest point that you must digest is that government can hemorrhage money in the competition and then just charge the public in increased taxes. Private or non-profits can not lose money and stay in business. You can't compete with a government entity with pockets so deep that they will never run out of money and can hide how much they are underwater each year. I'm well aware of that point. I simply do not agree with it. Well run companies do manage to compete with government. However, I have listed what I'd be willing to accept in place of government run plan. =Bob How many cases are there of private firms competing directly with government enterprises offering the same products or services? Probably not too many. FedEx and UPS vs the USPS is the one most people think of. It's true that those two private firms are doing well. However, the USPS is in terrible shape and will require tons of money to avoid bankruptcy. But that brings up another point that I wish I had thought of earlier. Simply put, there one of two things is likely to happen when a government "company" tries to compete with private firms (which would include non-governmental non-profits). One, the government firm will undercut the others so much that the latter will either go completely out of business or else will consolidate into one or two very weak companies that barely stay alive. Or, Two, the governmental competitor will be the one limping along and barely staying alive, and that only with the help of frequent government help in the form of regulatory relief (e.g., the Post Office's monopoly on first class mail), cash grants, or both. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 15, 2009 17:57:21 GMT -8
I'm well aware of that point. I simply do not agree with it. Well run companies do manage to compete with government. However, I have listed what I'd be willing to accept in place of government run plan. =Bob How many cases are there of private firms competing directly with government enterprises offering the same products or services? Probably not too many. FedEx and UPS vs the USPS is the one most people think of. It's true that those two private firms are doing well. However, the USPS is in terrible shape and will require tons of money to avoid bankruptcy. But that brings up another point that I wish I had thought of earlier. Simply put, there one of two things is likely to happen when a government "company" tries to compete with private firms (which would include non-governmental non-profits). One, the government firm will undercut the others so much that the latter will either go completely out of business or else will consolidate into one or two very weak companies that barely stay alive. Or, Two, the governmental competitor will be the one limping along and barely staying alive, and that only with the help of frequent government help in the form of regulatory relief (e.g., the Post Office's monopoly on first class mail), cash grants, or both. AzWm You forget one thing about USPS - it would require a Constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Barring that, there are things that are required to keep it. I would suggest, however, that you assume Saturday delivery will go by the wayside, there won't be very many corner mailboxes and many stations will shut down. The think about 1st class mail is that private companies wouldn't bother with rural areas because that's where a lot of the loses come from. As for health care, what I've always favored is a public plan for those who can't pay the incredibly high cost of health care and those who've lost their jobs. Obama has stated that he does not believe a public option sould be free, although I'm sure it would depend upon income level. And again, if it's done correctly, with arbitration before litigation, putting a cap on the percentage of increase in insurance premiums tied to the cost of living index (as I've written, see the increases in Texas and California despite the "tort reform") and a tiered system based upon income level, I'll go along with no public option. But you don't like that. You are on a single-payer system but you don't really want to pay anything for others to be on that system, even though such a system is not a part of any of the 5 bills currently being considered. Oh, but of course, a public plan would eventually wipe out the blood-suckers who are whacking the Middle-Class up one side and down the other (not to mention small businesses who get a ton of lip service from the Republicans but are being so hammered by constantly increasing health benefit costs that they just go under or drop all heath benefits and deal with the reduction in productivity when their employees get sick). I'm fed up with your ideological platitudes, Will. What do you have to offer for solutions other than tort reform and the specious nonsense about allowing people to shop out of state? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 15, 2009 18:40:31 GMT -8
Okay, how about this. 1) Repeal the law against insurance companies operating across state lines. This would increase risk pools, which is a good thing. 2) In the area of malpractice insurance, create a national risk pool for physicians and other health care providers. Require complainants to bring their cases to an arbitration panel made up of outstanding physicians. This would help keep the emphasis on helping patients who have actually been hurt by poor medical performance. 3) Require that every citizen obtain health insurance. This would be along the lines of every driver having auto insurance. By so doing, people with pre-existing conditions could be covered. (This is tricky, because of course the feds would want to set strict requirements on insurers. It would be necessary to allow as much freedom as possible in terms of the policies insurers could offer. For instance, people should be able to choose between a variety of plans with varying monthly payments and deductible amounts.) 4) Provide a subsidy for very poor Americans who cannot insurance or who are not already covered by existing govt. programs.5) Prohibit any individual not in this country from getting insurance. This one is explosive, because this provision, in conjunction the requirement that every have insurance would lead to all sorts of conflict. The open border fans would scream bloody murder, for instance. However, it is absolutely not acceptable that illegal aliens should have taxpayer funded insurance. (I suppose Barack will solve this problem by having all illegals declared legal U.S. citizens.  ) 6) Get serious about fighting fraud and abuse, especially in the govt. systems (MediCare, etc.) There are probably other things that could be done, but I think the preceding ideas, if enacted, would do a lot to solve our problems. They aren't all libertarian, but I still stand by them. And I hope you do not find my ideas to be idealogical platitudes. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 16, 2009 6:58:41 GMT -8
The biggest point that you must digest is that government can hemorrhage money in the competition and then just charge the public in increased taxes. Private or non-profits can not lose money and stay in business. You can't compete with a government entity with pockets so deep that they will never run out of money and can hide how much they are underwater each year. Exactly. That is why my plan described above is perfect. I would like to hear what problem conservatives have with that plan and what problem liberals have with the plan. I think that I agree up to a point. Under your plan, what is to keep the Federal Government from taking control just by bleeding money both in its plan and in the payment to private insurance at taxpayer expense? Covering illegals, young who don't want to get insured yet and the others that make up the ObamaKare estimate of 46 million new folks to be covered will cost Billions annually and we need to see where the care will come from. Your plan at least has some thought behind it. The bunch of bills in Congress under the ObamaKare umbrella has very little reasoning other than spending huge amounts of money to accomplish a rationing of care to most of us. |
|
)