Obama, you piece of crap

#26
#26
MT LeConte said:
What would you consider a workable bill? The ones the Rs came up with would have knocked tens of millions off the roles. When those people get sick or go to the ER and don't pay the providers are just going to pass the costs on to the next person who does have insurance. You're going to pay either way.
Click to expand...


Correct.

By far, the one thing that added cost to the system was coverage of preexisting conditions. Some additional cost to new, mandated benefits.

The thing is, the coverage of preexisting for other people was going on anyway, it was just coming out of another of your pockets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#27
#27
MT LeConte said:
You should probably look in the mirror and be a little more careful how you vote next time. Obamacare is failing because the Republicans want it to fail and have done everything they can think of to see that it fails. They promised to replace it with something better but they didn't have anything better and still don't.

Until we go to single payer prepare to continue to pay out the azz or do without insurance.
Click to expand...

Obamacare is failing because it was designed to fail. This was the taster to get masses hooked on "free" healthcare. Single payer was never going to fly in 2009, so the best way to arrive at that end was a watered down version that would knowingly fail. It was a safe play for democrats either way: If it failed it's because the republicans caused it to fail; if it succeeded it was proof single payer could work.

I think it's telling that when Trump says it's a disaster the democrats say it's great, and then they turn around and say that Trump is ruining it. If it's so great how is he able to kill it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#28
#28
MT LeConte said:
You should probably look in the mirror and be a little more careful how you vote next time. Obamacare is failing because the Republicans want it to fail and have done everything they can think of to see that it fails. They promised to replace it with something better but they didn't have anything better and still don't.

Until we go to single payer prepare to continue to pay out the azz or do without insurance.
Click to expand...

Single payer isn't the solution. Removing government involvement is the solution. Let people buy insurance across state lines. The only involvement I think the government should have is protections for prior conditions. I.e. if someone has a chronic disease and loses their insurance, they should be able to afford insurance. However, with employer provided insurance this typically isn't an issue. It's when people buy from the market place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#29
#29
MT LeConte said:
What would you consider a workable bill? The ones the Rs came up with would have knocked tens of millions off the roles. When those people get sick or go to the ER and don't pay the providers are just going to pass the costs on to the next person who does have insurance. You're going to pay either way.
Click to expand...

That is all beside the point of my post.

You were *****ing and moaning and blaming the Rs for Obamcare failing and them not fixing it. Obamcare failing is not the Rs fault!

Failing to repeal and replace Obamcare with a workable plan IS the Rs fault. Those bastards had 7 years to work on a plan that could have been voted on day 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
hog88 said:
That is all beside the point of my post.

You were *****ing and moaning and blaming the Rs for Obamcare failing and them not fixing it. Obamcare failing is not the Rs fault!

Failing to repeal and replace Obamcare with a workable plan IS the Rs fault. Those bastards had 7 years to work on a plan that could have been voted on day 1.
Click to expand...

What is your idea of a workable plan?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
Correct.

By far, the one thing that added cost to the system was coverage of preexisting conditions. Some additional cost to new, mandated benefits.

The thing is, the coverage of preexisting for other people was going on anyway, it was just coming out of another of your pockets.
Click to expand...

then why are we now seeing huge increases in health care cost. At least double in most cases?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
MT LeConte said:
What is your idea of a workable plan?
Click to expand...

Do away with ACA completely, allow providers to refuse service, allow catastrophic plans and HSAs regardless of plan or income. Allow the individual to deduct insurance premiums from their taxable income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#35
#35
SpaceCoastVol said:
you left out a word
Click to expand...


It was going in there, anyway.

Don't you understand? It's a zero-sum game. The money is getting spent, one way or the other. Whether it shows up in your insurance premiums or shows up in your taxes, we are spreading the cost across everyone. The only difference between what we have now and single-payer is that we are currently adding in as a cost the profit and administrative expenses of insurance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
It was going in there, anyway.

Don't you understand? It's a zero-sum game. The money is getting spent, one way or the other. Whether it shows up in your insurance premiums or shows up in your taxes, we are spreading the cost across everyone. The only difference between what we have now and single-payer is that we are currently adding in as a cost the profit and administrative expenses of insurance.
Click to expand...

The admin expense is there regardless. Someone will have to be paid to process claims, build networks, IT/IS, deal with customers, etc. Profit margins are running 2-5%, I will take that over a goverment entity that has zero incentive to operate efficiently.
 
#39
#39
DancingOutlaw said:
The admin expense is there regardless. Someone will have to be paid to process claims, build networks, IT/IS, deal with customers, etc. Profit margins are running 2-5%, I will take that over a goverment entity that has zero incentive to operate efficiently.
Click to expand...


Government has been shown to manage in this arena MUCH more efficiently, and for a long time. Look it up. Medicare administrative expenses typically run about 2 % per year, sometimes a bit more, whereas private insurance administrative expenses and profit are more in the 15 % range.

When you are talking $600 billion per year, its a difference of $60-70 billion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
It was going in there, anyway.

Don't you understand? It's a zero-sum game. The money is getting spent, one way or the other. Whether it shows up in your insurance premiums or shows up in your taxes, we are spreading the cost across everyone. The only difference between what we have now and single-payer is that we are currently adding in as a cost the profit and administrative expenses of insurance.
Click to expand...

It is not a zero sum game - we currently require people to pay for coverage they do not want or need. While some of this is simply cost sharing some of it could be eliminated with truly competitive HI markets and accordingly the total spent on HI could be lower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
Government has been shown to manage in this arena MUCH more efficiently, and for a long time. Look it up. Medicare administrative expenses typically run about 2 % per year, sometimes a bit more, whereas private insurance administrative expenses and profit are more in the 15 % range.

When you are talking $600 billion per year, its a difference of $60-70 billion.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with this math - Medicare admin costs are expressed as a percentage but the average Medicare patient has much higher medical costs. Accordingly taking the admin costs and expressing them as % of the total spend make the appear smaller relatively.

Medicare Patient: 25,000 in HC costs; @2% = 500 admin costs.

Private insurance patient: 5,000 in HC costs with 500 admin looks like 10% admin costs when it is really the same amount of admin costs per patient.

It's not an apples to apples comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
Government has been shown to manage in this arena MUCH more efficiently, and for a long time. Look it up. Medicare administrative expenses typically run about 2 % per year, sometimes a bit more, whereas private insurance administrative expenses and profit are more in the 15 % range.

When you are talking $600 billion per year, its a difference of $60-70 billion.
Click to expand...

That's so wrong it's not even funny.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_05.htm

The government doesn't manage anything efficiently. They criminally waste and mismanage money and resources with commonly negative results. The only thing worse than government management is "public-private partnership" management.

The only thing the government does better than the private sector besides wasting and breaking things is creating long lines.
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Instead of showing up in Medicaid and Medicare, it's now showing up in insurance premiums.
Click to expand...

so my contribution towards Medicaid and Medicare should have gone down in relation? Let me look. ehm, no, no it hasn't. That has also consistently grown. try again.
 
#44
#44
volinbham said:
Here's the problem with this math - Medicare admin costs are expressed as a percentage but the average Medicare patient has much higher medical costs. Accordingly taking the admin costs and expressing them as % of the total spend make the appear smaller relatively.

Medicare Patient: 25,000 in HC costs; @2% = 500 admin costs.

Private insurance patient: 5,000 in HC costs with 500 admin looks like 10% admin costs when it is really the same amount of admin costs per patient.

It's not an apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...


This exact argument, advanced by the insurance industry of course via Heritage Foundation, has flatly been debunked.

Your claim:

Naturally, Medicare beneficiaries need, on average, more health care services than those who are privately insured. Yet the bulk of administrative costs are incurred on a fixed program-level or a per-beneficiary basis. Expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs makes Medicare’s administrative costs appear lower not because Medicare is necessarily more efficient but merely because its administrative costs are spread over a larger base of actual health care costs. When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.
Click to expand...


Proven false by the CBO.
However, 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. 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.)


The CBO study suggests that even in the context of basic insurance reforms, such as guaranteed issue and renewability, private plans’ administrative costs are higher than the administrative costs of public insurance. The experience of private plans within FEHBP carries the same conclusion. Under FEHBP, the administrative costs of Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) average 7 percent, not counting the costs of federal agencies to administer enrollment of employees. Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) participating in FEHBP have administrative costs of 10 to 12 percent.


In international perspective, the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance, with its diverse billing and review practices.
Click to expand...

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/?mcubz=3


The Heritage Foundation is not a think tank. Do not believe what they say. They are paid by the industry to perpetuate falsehoods masquerading as fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#45
#45
hog88 said:
Do away with ACA completely, allow providers to refuse service, allow catastrophic plans and HSAs regardless of plan or income. Allow the individual to deduct insurance premiums from their taxable income.
Click to expand...

The question was about a "workable" plan. A Bill with the your proposals would never see the floor of the House or Senate, particularly the refusal of service to an injured or sick person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#46
#46
midnight orange said:
That's so wrong it's not even funny.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_05.htm

The government doesn't manage anything efficiently. They criminally waste and mismanage money and resources with commonly negative results. The only thing worse than government management is "public-private partnership" management.

The only thing the government does better than the private sector besides wasting and breaking things is creating long lines.
Click to expand...



Yeah, you do not want to be quoting that guy. He's a proven fraud, hired gun for whatever industry will pay him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
Yeah, you do not want to be quoting that guy. He's a proven fraud, hired gun for whatever industry will pay him.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem. But since we're on the topic, Krugman is not a hired gun? Private industry has an axe to grind while government accountants have noble, altruistic intentions? The cbo is accurate at forecasting costs? Interesting.
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
midnight orange said:
Ad hominem. But since we're on the topic, Krugman's not a hired gun? Private industry has an axe to grind while government accountants have noble, altruistic intentions? The cbo is accurate at forecasting costs? Interesting.
Click to expand...


Krugman wrote the article but he is just quoting the CBO and some third party sources, which you are welcome to check in to.

I'll hold up their numbers versus your guy any day of the week. I really do not think you want to go there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
Krugman wrote the article but he is just quoting the CBO and some third party sources, which you are welcome to check in to.

I'll hold up their numbers versus your guy any day of the week. I really do not think you want to go there.
Click to expand...

Please go there. I've got to see this. You're contention is that Krugman is not a hired gun and that the cbo is accurate at forecasting numbers. You also contend that medicare is efficiently managed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top