Past Healthcare reforms that would have worked

[No Limit]

No, most medical research is done by private companies, looking to make a fortune by creating a better drug/procedure/placebo.

Universities specialize in taking gov't grants to research whether or not masturbation is healthy...

I guess making shit up is a sport for you, huh?

In 2000, a report from a Joint Economic Committee of Congress outlined the benefits of NIH research. It noted that some econometric studies had given its research, which was funded at $16 billion a year in 2000, a rate of return of 25 to 40 percent per year. It also found that of the 21 drugs with the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and 1992, public funding was "instrumental" for 15.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health

So for the 21 of the most important drugs between 1965 and 1992 15 of them wouldn't have been around without US government funding.

And you are going to point to a study done in the UK about possible causes of prostate cancer (a disease that 1 in 6 men will eventually face) as an argument against healthcare reseach in the united states?

And when insurance industries go under, how will docs get paid? By the gov't? Not with the bureaucracy and kickbacks required for a plan to go ahead.

The US government already covers about 40% of all the medical bills in this country, they are perfectly capabale of writing doctors checks. In fact they are a lot more capable of this than private insurance is which takes 30% off the top for their own profits while allowing doctors to charge $1,000 for toothbrushes. Medicare has an overhead cost of around 3%, private insurance is about 30%.

 

[CptStern]

And when insurance industries go under, how will docs get paid? By the gov't? Not with the bureaucracy and kickbacks required for a plan to go ahead.

oh I dont know, it seems to work well in every single 1st world country in the world except the US. I mean you're speculating based on a completely unfounded fear. the proof that it works is right before your eyes. every other first world country in the world has this in place yet you ignore that and instead focus on the intangible "what if" scenario. it's not even realistic in the least. and really who ****ing cares of the iinsurance companies go under? you do! that's who because it might mean that in your narrow pov the government would have to step in and that's far too close to some made up version of socialism you've convinced yourself is attempting to subvert your nation's government

Yeah, thats bullshit, too. Especially considering how much it costs to pay teacher unions to put out the absolutely awful education they do. The textbooks are old as all hell (I graduated high school in 2004, and our US history books only went up to the Gulf War in 1991), and schools dont have enough resources to teach kids stuff. A disgusting amount of the money paid in goes to unions that tell teachers they cannot work 5 minutes of overtime, and cannot contribute a cent to the school that employs them.

having worked at the board of education for 7 years as an art instructor I find it hard to believe this is the case. teachers put in a hell of lot of unpaid overtime. everything from marking papers to attending extracurricular events. hell I know of several teachers would routinely purchase materials for their class out of their own pockets. It seems to me like you've overgeneralised this from someone who heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else. also if you school had 13 year old history books it's up to you parents to ask your local board of education why that was the case. being proactive in your education could have meant have modern history books

I guess your point is that all education should be private? that would certainly drive a wedge in the US economy from which in the long run it might never recover. also so much for the right to a free education just so people like you ont feel like you're living a "socialist" dream. look why the hell dont you just move to some unchargted island? it seems to me you dont want to pay taxes (well more so than the pittance you pay now through purchasing things and income tax) or support your country in any way; the roads are not going to pave themselves you know

Yes, each service pays just the bare minimum. There are hundreds of thousands of cases of mothers double dipping to get multiple payouts from different organizations, in addition to taking donations from local religious groups...

ok well if you're going to make this point you need to provide proof that this is the norm

The baby boomers are retiring. They are going to bleed social security dry.

no one's ever retired before the baby boomers

Its been mathematically proven. My generation and my parent's generation have been paying into SS for years,

lol you're 23, how much could you have possibly paid into social security?

and due to mis-management, we will not see any of it. Social Security became a slush fund for congress to reach into when they needed to hide higher than expected budget costs.

I am all for privatizatino of social security, or just trashing it all together. At the very least, make the payroll deductions optional on an employee case-by-case basis.

again I dont see where you've backed up your claims. so I'm going to do it for you and at the same time prove that your unfounded fear is unfounded:

And, the nearly 80 million Baby Boomers phasing into retirement will set in motion a dynamic that—if not addressed by Congress—could result in the next generation getting fewer benefits.

However, despite fears that Boomers will trigger a collapse of Social Security, experts say the system can and will survive for decades and generations to come.

Congress made significant fixes to Social Security during the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, and there appears to be a slowly gathering political will to make it solvent for the next 75 years.

By 2017, Social Security is expected to start paying out more than it collects in payroll taxes, according to the 2009 Annual Report from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees. There is currently a large surplus, but it will be drained by the year 2037. At that point, Social Security will only be able to pay out 75 percent of its benefits.

your parents will be fine. you said you'd have no social security but that's not true either:

“Alarmists who claim that Social Security won’t be around when today’s young workers retire misunderstand or misrepresent the trustees’ projections,”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34941334?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

they have 27 years to fix the problem of a 75% payout (in contrast to your predicted 0% payout) but you'll still get paid.

you need to stop listening to the bs being spoonfed to you by the partisan hacks who have self interest in mind. everything you say is misinformation or bending of the truth

 

[Ridge]

1. Why do you think healthcare has been getting so expensive? To help cover to pay for those who dont pay (emergency room visits for colds by illegals and those who refuse to buy health care)

2. The US Gov't pays for 40% of medical bills? While only 15% are uninsured. If 100% of people are not insured through private companies, that means the US Gov't will have to pay more than 6 and a half times what it does right now towards healthcare. How can we be expected to do this when poor policies have left us with trillions of dollars in debt, mostly to foreign countries. And the dollar gets weaker every day as they try to print more money to make up for the deficit...

3. Yes, people have retired before the current generation. But social security only started a decade or so before this generation was born, and this is the LARGEST generation of retirees there has been in US history. Social security HAS a chance at survival, if Congress stops using it's funds to pay for other pet projects. Privatize social security, then maybe it will have a chance! But it will never happen, because that is Congress' Free Parking space on the board, where they can grab all the funds they want to make projects seem smaller and more efficient...

 

[CptStern]

1. Why do you think healthcare has been getting so expensive? To help cover to pay for those who dont pay (emergency room visits for colds by illegals and those who refuse to buy health care)

goddamit ridge, where's your proof? the burden of proof lies with you. I dont know you from a hole in the ground why you should I take your word for it? provide sources to your points

2. The US Gov't pays for 40% of medical bills? While only 15% are uninsured. If 100% of people are not insured through private companies, that means the US Gov't will have to pay more than 6 and a half times what it does right now towards healthcare. How can we be expected to do this when poor policies have left us with trillions of dollars in debt, mostly to foreign countries.

you're stringing along healthcare to debts incured outside of healthcare. you dont owe an extravagant amouint of money to foreign nations for healthcare alone.

And the dollar gets weaker every day as they try to print more money to make up for the deficit...

again what does this have to do with healthcare? you could easily stop arming yourselves to the teeth to make up the difference, you could stop invading other countries for no reason other than to establish footholds in the area. I mean you dont have a problem that the US is providing FREE healthcare for every man woman and child in iraq but I guess that's too good for americans. more people paying into the system means the government would have to foot less of a bill and as it stands you already pay for healthcare through taxes: medicaid. but at least this way you'd get something in return

3. Yes, people have retired before the current generation. But social security only started a decade or so before this generation was born, and this is the LARGEST generation of retirees there has been in US history. Social security HAS a chance at survival, if Congress stops using it's funds to pay for other pet projects. Privatize social security, then maybe it will have a chance! But it will never happen, because that is Congress' Free Parking space on the board, where they can grab all the funds they want to make projects seem smaller and more efficient...

you repeat the same thuing even though I've proven your argument wrong. you're beyond reasoning with

 

[Ridge]

you're stringing along healthcare to debts incured outside of healthcare. you dont owe an extravagant amouint of money to foreign nations for healthcare alone.

I mean our debt in general. Of course we didnt blow 3 trillion dollars on healthcare. We blew it on cheating banks so they could keep on cheating us...

again what does this have to do with healthcare? you could easily stop arming yourselves to the teeth to make up the difference, you could stop invading other countries for no reason other than to establish footholds in the area. I mean you dont have a problem that the US is providing FREE healthcare for every man woman and child in iraq but I guess that's too good for americans. more people paying into the system means the government would have to foot less of a bill and as it stands you already pay for healthcare through taxes: medicaid. but at least this way you'd get something in return

I agree Iraq was bullshit. But, in case you forgot, a group in Afghanistan blew 3,000 innocent people off the face of the earth! Britain understands this. The same group blew up a bunch of buses and subway stations a few years later. Maybe once Canada gets a large portion of it's population vaporized, they'll understand what the ****ing problem is!

you repeat the same thuing even though I've proven your argument wrong. you're beyond reasoning with

Several reasons. The first being that when Social Security was passed it was assumed that every generation would be larger than the generation behind it. Wrong assumption.

The next assumption was that all funds paid into the system would only go to those who were retired and that they would probably die within 5 years. Again wrong assumption. The next assumption was that the funds paid into Social Security would NOT be used by the federal government to spend as they wanted. Again wrong assumption.

The baby-boomers are now starting to retire. They are a huge generation much larger than the generation behind them.

Social Security funds now go to widows and orphans as well as to legal and illegal residents who paid nothing into the system. And we all know that congress couldn't resist taking those funds and spending them.

Social Security WOULD work if the taxes people paid into the system went into their own individual accounts. Instead, its all pooled together into one large pile of cash.

 

[No Limit]

2. The US Gov't pays for 40% of medical bills? While only 15% are uninsured. If 100% of people are not insured through private companies, that means the US Gov't will have to pay more than 6 and a half times what it does right now towards healthcare. How can we be expected to do this when poor policies have left us with trillions of dollars in debt, mostly to foreign countries. And the dollar gets weaker every day as they try to print more money to make up for the deficit...

So you got nothing in terms of why a for profit insurance company would offer coverage to someone that is dropped because they got sick or someone that has a pre-existing condition. Your response to those people is **** off and die, just wanna make that clear.

The 40% has to do with contradicting your point. The point you made is that somehow the government is incapable of writing checks. You made that up. The government has a system in place for covering 40% of the medical bills in this country. That system is far more efficient than the private sector. Whereas the 30% of your healthcare costs go to overhead in the private sector only about 3% go to overhead when the government is the insurer. Now, again, you say that removing malpractice lawsuits is the big solution here. That would save about 3% at most according to the CBO. Now if nothing about the system we have in place now changed aside from replacing insurance companies (which provide absolutely no value at all) with a single payer system ran by the government we would see a 27% savings in costs because of the overhead costs. Now I'm sure you're a fiscal conservative, you tell me what 27% of 2 trillion dollars a year is. You guys get pissed when they try to pass a 10 billion a year unemployment extension, why are you against saving $500 billion a year when absolutely nothing would change as again, the insuranace companies don't provide you with the care, they add no value what so ever and the services they do provide (writing a check) the government has already been proven to do a lot more efficiently.

 

[Ridge]

The question is, when it comes to health care, do you want quality, or quantity. The Canadian Premiere who came to the US last month for heart surgery seems to prefer quality.

You DO realize that the healthcare bill would tell doctors where and when they could practice, right? So if they decide that there are too many doctors in your town, they will either kick the extras out of town, or make it so they cannot practice medicine, PERIOD. Thus, making them unemployed.

And if it is so great, why is there a provision for the meatheads in DC to go on a DIFFERENT plan of healthcare? Because some people are more equal than others, it would seem. They know we are getting the short end of the stick. And they are fine, as long as they get the long end.

The single player system is bullshit. And the belief that it will save money is bullshit. Name ONE time when Gov't services turned a profit, or at the very least, did not overrun their budget. I'm waiting.

 

[Solaris]

The question is, when it comes to health care, do you want quality, or quantity. The Canadian Premiere who came to the US last month for heart surgery seems to prefer quality.

You DO realize that the healthcare bill would tell doctors where and when they could practice, right? So if they decide that there are too many doctors in your town, they will either kick the extras out of town, or make it so they cannot practice medicine, PERIOD. Thus, making them unemployed.

And if it is so great, why is there a provision for the meatheads in DC to go on a DIFFERENT plan of healthcare? Because some people are more equal than others, it would seem. They know we are getting the short end of the stick. And they are fine, as long as they get the long end.

The single player system is bullshit. And the belief that it will save money is bullshit. Name ONE time when Gov't services turned a profit, or at the very least, did not overrun their budget. I'm waiting.

Not the case over here, buddo.

 

[Ridge]

Yes, but Britain and Ireland are a much smaller country than the US is. I believe they together have less landmass than the state of Texas.

So we have a slightly larger government, controlling a much larger piece of land, with more doctors, and more towns. I'd wager most European countries have fewer towns than most US states...

 

[No Limit]

The question is, when it comes to health care, do you want quality, or quantity. The Canadian Premiere who came to the US last month for heart surgery seems to prefer quality.

You DO realize that the healthcare bill would tell doctors where and when they could practice, right? So if they decide that there are too many doctors in your town, they will either kick the extras out of town, or make it so they cannot practice medicine, PERIOD. Thus, making them unemployed.

And if it is so great, why is there a provision for the meatheads in DC to go on a DIFFERENT plan of healthcare? Because some people are more equal than others, it would seem. They know we are getting the short end of the stick. And they are fine, as long as they get the long end.

The single player system is bullshit. And the belief that it will save money is bullshit. Name ONE time when Gov't services turned a profit, or at the very least, did not overrun their budget. I'm waiting.

I'm waiting for you to address my point instead of changing the subject because you got no response.

I just told you that if you changed nothing else, and I mean nothing you would save 500 billion a year. You could leave the exact same system insurance companies use to write checks (a system filled with fraud) you would save 500 billion dollars a year right off the bat. This is a simple fact. You say a single payer system is bullshit yet 40% of our healthcare is based on government paying the bills and the government does this just fine. Ask old people if they want to switch from medicare to private insurance, see what they tell you. They all love their medicare so clearly the government does a great job there.

So please ridge, stop changing the subject, stop making shit up. Explain why we should pay 500 billion dollars a year to insurance companies which add absolutely no value at all.

Yes, but Britain and Ireland are a much smaller country than the US is. I believe they together have less landmass than the state of Texas.

So we have a slightly larger government, controlling a much larger piece of land, with more doctors, and more towns. I'd wager most European countries have fewer towns than most US states...

The amount of people in the united states covered under a government insurance plan is about double to the population of Britain and about quadruple the population of Canada. And it's managed just fine.

 

[Ridge]

No, 15% of our healthcare system is based on the gov't paying out, they just happen to pay 40% of services to that 15% of usage.

I said before, lets use reform to cut out insurance fraud. Lay the smackdown on companies, people and hospitals that commit fraud. That would probably save the same 500 billion dollars, without having to raise taxes 8-15% on everybody...

Anyways, I'm off to a job interview. You see, I was a contractor. Business was good until the gov't saved the economy and the world by bailing out the banks. Now nobody can afford to hire me and my services.

 

[No Limit]

Where are you getting 15% from? Looks like I was wrong, you are right, it's about 40% for spending but 30% (not 15%) of the population is covered under a government plan compared to 60% for the private sector:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Public

That's almost 3 times the population of Canada and about the same population as Britain.

I said before, lets use reform to cut out insurance fraud. Lay the smackdown on companies, people and hospitals that commit fraud. That would probably save the same 500 billion dollars, without having to raise taxes 8-15% on everybody...

This is the part where I start getting angrier because it seems like you are totally incapable of ****ing listening. Your logic is refuted yet you don't address that only repeat the same thing over and over. 2-3% would be saved with malpractice law suit reform. Do you have statistics to back up the other things you are saying? How is that going to total 500 billion, I know you didnt' just pull that number out of your ass (actually Im sure you did)?

Anyways, I'm off to a job interview. You see, I was a contractor. Business was good until the gov't saved the economy and the world by bailing out the banks. Now nobody can afford to hire me and my services.

That's funny, because the government stimilus bill probably saved my job by helping us secure a huge contract from one of the national research jobs. See, I actually have proof of what Im saying. You are making shit up. Yeah, go to your job interview, but once you're done with that get your ass back here and address the real points.

 

[CptStern]

The question is, when it comes to health care, do you want quality, or quantity. The Canadian Premiere who came to the US last month for heart surgery seems to prefer quality.

hahah half truths and outright misleading information. premier Williams (we have more than one) was told by his doctors to leave the province because it was an experimental procedure not yet approved by his home province

" Well, I had to leave the province because it was recommended to me by my own doctors that for this particular type of surgery I should leave the province."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/22/nl-williams-ntv-220210.html

You DO realize that the healthcare bill would tell doctors where and when they could practice, right? So if they decide that there are too many doctors in your town, they will either kick the extras out of town, or make it so they cannot practice medicine, PERIOD. Thus, making them unemployed.

you make it sound like fact when you're speculating. no universal healthcare is in existance as of yet in the US so I dont understand where you're getting this from. But we can look at medicare as it is now; it's government funded yet healthcare professionals arent told where and when they can practice medicine. the only real difference is that instead of sending a bill to some guy in a suit looking to save as much in payout as is possible they send their bill to the government. if it's anything like canadian healthcare then their wont be a government bureacrat going over figures like vultures to find what loophole they can use to screw the patient over to save a buck. I have never had to answer a single question or fill out a form (except my healthcare card renewal form) from any government representative

And if it is so great, why is there a provision for the meatheads in DC to go on a DIFFERENT plan of healthcare? Because some people are more equal than others, it would seem. They know we are getting the short end of the stick. And they are fine, as long as they get the long end.

"AND THOSE FAT CATS IN WASHINGTON" ...and to the best of my knowledge you're armed at all times ..great

The single player system is bullshit.

seems to work for us and our system is ranked higher than yours despite the fact that the US spends more per capita than the canada does

And the belief that it will save money is bullshit. Name ONE time when Gov't services turned a profit, or at the very least, did not overrun their budget. I'm waiting.

since when is the government in it to make a profit? this is the goddam problem with your healthcare system; it's profit driven. and the ones holding the purse strings are a third party that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the health and well being of the patient; their ONLY interest is the bottom line.put private business in to what was tradionally a non-profit social sector like say education and you have private industry having ultimate say overour education. this is essentially what the US has right now with it's current healthcare system; people in the business of making money making life and death descisions of YOUR behalf. why so many americans are ok with this boggles my mind

 

[Ridge]

Where are you getting 15% from?

From one of our congressmen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

This is the part where I start getting angrier because it seems like you are totally incapable of ****ing listening. Your logic is refuted yet you don't address that only repeat the same thing over and over. 2-3% would be saved with malpractice law suit reform. Do you have statistics to back up the other things you are saying? How is that going to total 500 billion, I know you didnt' just pull that number out of your ass (actually Im sure you did)?

And where do you get that we'll save 500 billion?

That's funny, because the government stimilus bill probably saved my job by helping us secure a huge contract from one of the national research jobs. See, I actually have proof of what Im saying. You are making shit up. Yeah, go to your job interview, but once you're done with that get your ass back here and address the real points.

Well congrats. I work in computers and offices.

"AND THOSE FAT CATS IN WASHINGTON" ...and to the best of my knowledge you're armed at all times ..great

Just because I dare question our supreme overlords, does not mean I wish harm on them. Just because I own a gun, doesnt mean I'm a bloodthirsty animal just dying for my next chance to ventilate some random person.

seems to work for us and our system is ranked higher than yours despite the fact that the US spends more per capita than the canada does

Gross overspending of government services. And how is it that giving them more services and more control will stop that runaway spending?

since when is the government in it to make a profit? this is the goddam problem with your healthcare system; it's profit driven. and the ones holding the purse strings are a third party that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the health and well being of the patient; their ONLY interest is the bottom line.put private business in to what was tradionally a non-profit social sector like say education and you have private industry having ultimate say overour education. this is essentially what the US has right now with it's current healthcare system; people in the business of making money making life and death descisions of YOUR behalf. why so many americans are ok with this boggles my mind

They are providing a service that costs them money. You DO realize that profits are typically less than 3% for health providers, dont you? They are providing a service, that humanity lived for millenia without the service. What has ruined the education system is the Dept of Education. They are there to always try to find ways to cut back spending where possible. This leads to watered down education and the further stupifying of American generations.

I attended a marksmanship class over a weekend last summer. I learned more about the Battle of Lexington and Concord in that weekend over a couple lunch breaks than I did in 12 years of public education. Many of today's youth would not be able to name all 50 states...

And the sheer brilliance behind cutting funding to schools that are struggling (No Child Left Behind) is mind boggling. If schools are having trouble teaching students, then they obviously need more resources!

So much of the federal government is crooked and corrupt, I wouldnt trust them to watch my coat at a party.

 

[No Limit]

From one of our congressmen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Lol. Wow, a congressmen, what an authoritve source.

It's 30% buddy, not 15%. And if we are capable of covering almost 100 million people by the government we can expend that to 300 million.

And where do you get that we'll save 500 billion?

I explained my reasoning to you very clearly. The for profit insurance companies run a 30% overhead, the government does the same thing with a 3% overhead. The math turns out to be about 500 billion since this country spends 2 trillion dollars on healthcare each year.

Well congrats. I work in computers and offices.

I "work in computers" too, what's your point?

So you are yet to explain why we should pay private insurance companies and get charged 30% extra right off the top when the government can do and has been doing the same thing with a 3% overhead.

 

[Ridge]

Lol. Wow, a congressmen, what an authoritve source.

It's 30% buddy, not 15%. And if we are capable of covering almost 100 million people by the government we can expend that to 300 million.

If you're going to ignore the facts and substitute your own numbers, then I see no reason to continue the discussion past this post.

I explained my reasoning to you very clearly. The for profit insurance companies run a 30% overhead, the government does the same thing with a 3% overhead. The math turns out to be about 500 billion since this country spends 2 trillion dollars on healthcare each year.

That is individuals supposedly saving that money, not the government. And even then, its a moot point, since tax increases will make up for the supposed savings.

(1) IN 1 GENERAL.—For purposes of this sub2
title, the table specified in this subsection is as fol3
lows:
In the case of family income
(expressed as a
percent of FPL) within
the following income
tier:
The initial premium
percentage
is—
The final premium
percentage
is—
The actuarial
value percentage
is—
133% through 150% 1.5% 3% 97%
150% through 200% 3% 5% 93%
200% through 250% 5% 7% 85%
250% through 300% 7% 9% 78%
300% through 350% 9% 10% 72%
350% through 400% 10% 11% 70%
4 (2) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of applying
5 the table under paragraph (1)—
6 (A) FOR LOWEST LEVEL OF INCOME.—In
7 the case of an individual with income that does
8 not exceed 133 percent of FPL, the individual
9 shall be considered to have income that is 133%
10 of FPL.

A direct quote from the healthcare bill. So anybody makes money above the poverty line (even 2%) is assumed to make 133% of that income, and will have to pay an additional 1.5-3% in income taxes.

Enjoy the read. It also spells out grants to public schools and state governments for the express purpose of buying carbon offset credits (pages 2206, 2214 and 2216).

BTW, illegals get free coverage, without having to pay for it now. Pages 167-170

(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

‘‘(c) EXCEPTIONS.—

‘‘(2) NONRESIDENT 1 ALIENS.—Subsection (a)
2 shall not apply to any individual who is a non3
resident alien.

Sub Section D
‘‘(d) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.—
13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this
14 subsection are met with respect to any individual for
15 any period if such individual (and each qualifying
16 child of such individual) is covered by acceptable
17 coverage at all times during such period.

So you are yet to explain why we should pay private insurance companies and get charged 30% extra right off the top when the government can do and has been doing the same thing with a 3% overhead.

I dont pay an additional 30%. If that company is trying to rape me with crazy rates, I'll change to another company with lower rates. Just like I did last month with my car insurance.

 

[Krynn72]

I work in computers

Must be pretty cramped in there... heh heh

 

[No Limit]

If you're going to ignore the facts and substitute your own numbers, then I see no reason to continue the discussion past this post.

Umm, I gave you a link. So I sourced my number, you pulled yours out of a congressman's ass. So find a better cop out.

That is individuals supposedly saving that money, not the government. And even then, its a moot point, since tax increases will make up for the supposed savings.

What? If the government was able to eliminate 27% of overhead costs we would save 500 billion a year. That 500 billion could be used for all kinds of things. It's free money pretty much.

You can try to change the subject to the bill that is in the senate but I'm not gonna fall for that. I hate that bill. Currently we are talking about a single payer system and why you don't think its a good idea. So far you haven't been able to explain that.

I'll ask you again. What value does an insurance company add? Why can't the government do the same thing that they do (write a check) for everyone when they already do that for about 100 million americans. Again, medicare runs a 3% overhead, the insurance companies run 30%. They offer absolutely no value other to take 30% of our 2 trillion dollar health care budget and pocket it for their own profits. So, don't change the subject, don't ignore this very simple point; instead explain to me why this is a good idea.

I dont pay an additional 30%. If that company is trying to rape me with crazy rates, I'll change to another company with lower rates. Just like I did last month with my car insurance.

Do you understand that you can't just make shit up in a debate? What insurance company do you know that has a 3% overhead? Give me links.

 

[No Limit]

BTW, illegals get free coverage, without having to pay for it now. Pages 167-170

I wont let you side track the point but just to show you how incapable of simple reasonable thinking you are. Where did you get this bullshit from? Are you too lazy to read what your a posting?

The reason non-resident aliens don't have to pay the additional tax is because they can not be covered under this bill. So again, when you say illegals get free coverage you are just making shit up because nowhere in the bill does it say illegals get free coverage and you don't seem to understand that "non-resident alien" doesn't mean illegal immigrant. There are many non-resident aliens working in this country that are here legally. Do you make shit up on purpose?

 

[Dan]

Insurance is gambling. Plain and simple. You pay to them, hoping they have to pay out more. They take the money, hoping they dont have to make a payoff.

Insurance isn't gambling because it is generating value for both parties. The insurance company is large, so profit is profit to it. But to an individual, the cost of a dollar in insurance premiums is less than the cost of a dollar (multiplied by risk) within a huge medical bill.

The reason is that the value of a dollar is different for different situations. To a homeless person, 10 dollars is a lot of money. To a millionaire, it is nothing. By the same spectrum of value, a million dollar health care bill for an ordinary individual might as well be a billion dollar health care bill because they are both extraordinarily out of their budget. When compared to a hundred dollar premium, the million dollar health care bill in terms of personal value, is much more than the direct monetary 10000 times greater.

Insurance is basically using a large entity and shortcutting that spectrum of value to generate profits for itself.

Imagine this situation:

You make $100 per year. Basic subsistence costs $50. The rest of your income goes towards improving the quality of your life. Car, tv, internet, girls, restaurants etc. But you have an 8% chance of getting sick and losing all of your income each year. On a scale of bad stuff that can happen in your life, this would rank about a 10. Lose your income, go into debt to pay for basic subsistence and quality of life goes to shit.

For $10 a year, you can insure yourself against this event. On a scale of bad stuff that can happen, spending $10 per year is about a 0.5 on the sucky scale. You can't go to a restaurant as often. So which is the better choice? Monetarily and statistically, you are better off without insurance. 8% of $100 is $8 per year. But according to your suckiness scale. 8% of 10 is 0.8 on the scale versus 0.5 on the scale.

The reason is that a dollar isn't always a dollar. A dollar of basic sustenance is much more important to a starving person than a dollar of extra consumer goods to a well off person. It's the same way that loan sharks make money.

 

[VirusType2]

1. Why do you think healthcare has been getting so expensive? To help cover to pay for those who dont pay (emergency room visits for colds by illegals and those who refuse to buy health care)

I can tell you exactly what happens when someone cannot pay their emergency room visit. First, if it isn't paid it's sent to a collection agency. If the person proves they truly cannot pay it, the hospital "writes it off to charity."

You know what that means? When you write something off to charity, that means the full amount is deducted from the hospital's taxes. So the hospital actually lost nothing. The government paid for it in the form of a tax break.

So how is that adding to the cost of healthcare? It's not.

 

[No Limit]

Stop refuting Ridge's "facts" he pulled from World Net Daily, you might shatter his entire world view. Or more likely he'll just make up some new bullshit.

What's funny with the fact is that even after they write it off as charity your credit is still ****ed, that's why most bankruptcies that happen in this country are related to medical bills for people who actually had medical insurance just couldn't pay the insane deductible. Although you can't simply brush this off as the hospitals not losing any money as about half of all hospital treatments these days never get paid, so even though its a write off they still lose money. But not as much as Ridge would have you believe.

 

[CptStern]

we've established that Ridge pulls his facts out of the thin air. sourcing his "facts" is apparently too difficult for him

frankly he's been warned about this sort of thing in the past; either provide sources for the points you're making or dont bother posting

 

[No Limit]

we've established that Ridge pulls his facts out of the thin air. sourcing his "facts" is apparently too difficult for him

frankly he's been warned about this sort of thing in the past; either provide sources for the points you're making or dont bother posting

What I find funny with people like him is after you refute all their bullshit they just leave without changing their positions about anything only to repeat the same bullshit somewhere else. They're wrong, they know that they are wrong, but for some reason they simply don't care.

 

[CptStern]

ya but we're lieberals. that's what lieberals do; lie. we've somehow tampered with the truth to make it APPEAR as if it was wrong.

 

[CptStern]

oh and btw. even dogs get free healthcare in america

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_re_us/us_odd_canine_patient


dogs > americans

 

[VirusType2]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_re_us/us_odd_canine_patient

When the automatic doors at San Juan Regional Medical Center's emergency room slid open Saturday night, the pooch walked in, blood on his nose and paw, and a puncture hole in one leg.

That's just amazing.