If the US healthcare system is the best and socialism is the worst

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me if you really think the insurance companies make a profit with the premiums they receive why the government would not do the same?

OMG! That's funny! What can the government do better than the private sector?

The only thing I can think of is government wastes money better than the private sector.

That means you were not thinking of these things:

Workers Comp Scandals in other States
^Privatization of workers comp in California results in workers comp costs increasing to above 166% of the national median.

BBC News - Ken Clarke privatises Birmingham Prison amid union fury
^In UK privatized prisons cost 5% more even though private prisons don't provide workers with adequate benefits or pay.

Privatization During an Economic Downturn: Still Inefficient and Problematic | Progressive States Network
^Privatization of parking and parking meters resulted in an increase in costs by 240%

You’re in good hands with Social Security: But Privatization Proposals Would Unravel Its Ability to Insure Against Loss of Income, Disability, and Death | Economic Policy Institute
^SS keeps 39% of the elderly out of poverty
^SS returns are 26% higher than private alternatives

Charity Navigator - America's Largest Charity Evaluator | Home
Disagreeing With Dignan: The Politics Of Poverty And Welfare | Alas, a Blog
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/dont-donate-money-to-charity.html
^---Government welfare is around 3 times more efficient than private charity.
^Average charity has administration costs of 30% compared to 5% for government
^Americans spend around 300 billion a year on charity. If government were to become the only "charity" than Americas would save around 75 billion dollars a year.

Rights At Risk With Binding Mandatory Arbitration 9/28/07 | abc7news.com
Testimony
------------^In 1980s conservative supreme court rewrote federal law allowing special interest to do forced arbitrations.
Making it so consumers and the industry could only go to trial in privatized systems run by special interests.
^Examples of privatized court systems and forced arbitration:
---Special interests industries win over 95% of cases
---In one case a women was forced to pay 8,000 because someone else had the same name as her and owed the company money.
---One judge who ruled in favor of consumers once was immediacy removed from his judge position.
Public Citizen | Press Room - Arbitration More Expensive Than Court
^arbitration has 700% more administrative spending
^arbitrations also don't provide justice but instead corporate lawlessness
^arbitrations also charge fees that justice offers for free that equals 700%+ of admin costs
Public Citizen | Congress Watch | Congress Watch - PC rebuttal to industry's misleading statment on BMA report
^Arbitrations favor corporations by more than 25%
^In total the government justice department saves 50 billion a year.
^
Conservative Arbitration which granted corporations to become their own courts has allowed corporations to become above the law. Companies are immune from accountability if their actions result in the death or injury of a person. Any judge that handed down a verdict in favor of consumers was removed. People required to pay companies money that other people owed.
Court Deals Important Blow To Corporate Immunity | ThinkProgress
How Minnesota's AG Saved Consumers From the Credit Card Industry | ThinkProgress

http://www.genevaassociation.org/pdf/News/2011GlobalInsuranceIndustryFactsheet.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume2_number12/cex_2_12.pdf
The Real Costs of Car Ownership Calculator
^Socializing life insurance alone would save America 250billion yearly
^Socializing car insurance/home/and all others minus health care would save 200 billion
^Socializing all insurance minus health care would save almost 500billion dollars yearly

In 1996, Governor Wilson proposed completely “privatizing” the State Fund. Thankfully, both labor and business leaders denounced privatization, and the governor abandoned this proposal. In 2003, as a result of the severe under-pricing since 1995 spurred by open rating, 28 private carriers either suffered insolvency or stopped writing workers’ compensation policies in California. The State Fund took over the obligations of these bankrupt insurers costing California Tax payers, employers and workers billions of dollars.



Currently California Workers Compensation Insurance rates are 166% greater than the national median. California rates are currently the highest in the nation—all due to the deregulation scam and the excessive greed of private for-profit workers compensation insurance agencies.

So the state now runs the system and rates are 166% greater than the national median and that's the fault of the private sector? LOL!

Maybe I'll laugh at the rest of your sources later.

 

[dblack]

And thats what we are getting with the Affordable Care Act. The government isnt running the health care industry with it, its simply setting standards by which more people get covered, the mandate with the 80-85% payout should drive premium costs down ( but the jury is still out on that one. There have been right wing anf left wing economists who have gone both ways on it. meaning some left wingers say it wont and some right wingers say it will. At least we know theyre being honest instead of partisan even if they cant give us a definitive answer ).

Eventually though, if we set a goal to cover everyone, as Eisenhower wanted and Nixon proposed, the we will most likely have to expand medicare.

We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less. Competition is about the freedom of customers to decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. "Setting standards" by definition limits that freedom. It stifles innovation and makes criminals out of people who refuse to do as ordered and buy overpriced insurance from the dominant insurance cartel.

 

[Vidi]

And thats what we are getting with the Affordable Care Act. The government isnt running the health care industry with it, its simply setting standards by which more people get covered, the mandate with the 80-85% payout should drive premium costs down ( but the jury is still out on that one. There have been right wing anf left wing economists who have gone both ways on it. meaning some left wingers say it wont and some right wingers say it will. At least we know theyre being honest instead of partisan even if they cant give us a definitive answer ).

Eventually though, if we set a goal to cover everyone, as Eisenhower wanted and Nixon proposed, the we will most likely have to expand medicare.

We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less. Competition is about the freedom of customers to decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. "Setting standards" by definition limits that freedom. It stifles innovation and makes criminals out of people who refuse to do as ordered and buy overpriced insurance from the dominant insurance cartel.

You are semi-correct, but I wasnt speaking about competition. I was refering to a partial government not a total government solution.

Setting standards doesnt limit competition, it forces the players to compete within the rules. Rules, provided they are applied equally to all players, decide how the game is played, not who wins.

ETA: People who dont follow the law are criminals. Period. Doesnt matter if you like the law or not. Illegal aliens dont like our immigration laws and they are criminals and need to be caught and deported. laws dont make people criminals, breaking the laws make people criminals.

 

[dblack]

Setting standards doesnt limit competition, it forces the players to compete within the rules. Rules, provided they are applied equally to all players, decide how the game is played, not who wins.

Of course setting standards limits competition. That's the whole point, to prevent providers from offering (and customers from purchasing) products and services outside the 'standard'. This benefits the vested, dominant interests in a given industry - protecting their turf and preventing alternatives - but for the rest of us it merely limits our options. With PPACA, the situation is even worse because the status quo (corporate, group health insurance) is a proven failure. Rather than letting us ditch it and find a better way, the powers that be are teaming with the industry to keep us herded into their pens.

Democrats should be flat out ashamed for supporting this shit on the lame hope that it might, "some day", turn into their preferred 'public option'. Wake up. You're being played as unwitting corporatist shills.

 

[Greenbeard]

We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less.

Of course we are. We're getting a larger number of sellers in a given market. We're getting standardized quality and price indicators and actuarial numbers that allow sellers to send meaningful, readily understandable indicators to shoppers looking for plans. We're getting a level playing field that allows shoppers to choose the plan they like instead of being denied plan options by industry risk-shedding mechanisms. We're getting consumer-friendly IT interfaces that allow very easy, real-time side-by-side comparisons between plan offerings of different carriers in the market.

The health insurance market is on the verge of acting like a competitive market in a way it never has before.

 

[Ropey]

^Socializing life insurance alone would save America 250billion yearly
^Socializing car insurance/home/and all others minus health care would save 200 billion
^Socializing all insurance minus health care would save almost 500billion dollars yearly

 

[Vidi]

We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less.

Of course we are. We're getting a larger number of sellers in a given market. We're getting standardized quality and price indicators and actuarial numbers that allow sellers to send meaningful, readily understandable indicators to shoppers looking for plans. We're getting a level playing field that allows shoppers to choose the plan they like instead of being denied plan options by industry risk-shedding mechanisms. We're getting consumer-friendly IT interfaces that allow very easy, real-time side-by-side comparisons between plan offerings of different carriers in the market.

The health insurance market is on the verge of acting like a competitive market in a way it never has before.

Thats not until 2014, when the marketplace is scheduled to go live, and even then, to the best of my knoweldge, it doesnt end the mini monopolies that health insurance providers have within a state, correct?

 

[dblack]

We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less.

Of course we are. We're getting a larger number of sellers in a given market.

All selling the same standardized products at the same standardized rates. That's not competition - it's a fixed game, no matter how many players there are.

What we need, more than anything are non-standard solutions. We need companies trying radically different approaches. We, as health care consumers, need the freedom to decide for ourselves how best to pay finance our health care - not have the decision made for us by regulatory boards (with health care industry lobbyists whispering in their ears).

 

[Vidi]

We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less.

Of course we are. We're getting a larger number of sellers in a given market.

All selling the same standardized products at the same standardized rates. That's not competition - it's a fixed game, no matter how many players there are.

What we need, more than anything are non-standard solutions. We need companies trying radically different approaches. We, as health care consumers, need the freedom to decide for ourselves how best to pay finance our health care - not have the decision made for us by regulatory boards (with health care industry lobbyists whispering in their ears).

Actually, no.

My wife works in the health insurance field and the standardized policies are the required ones. Her company is adding more packages that offer more than the required sets in order to increase their profits. These "optional" plans would satisfy the ACA laws and at the same time be allowed to pay out less than the 80-85%, thus increasing their profit potential for the company.

These "optional" plans would obviously cost more than the standardized minimum coverage plans, but therein lies the freedom of choice. You choose with your wallet.

 

[Greenbeard]

Thats not until 2014, when the marketplace is scheduled to go live, and even then, to the best of my knoweldge, it doesnt end the mini monopolies that health insurance providers have within a state, correct?

The exchanges need to be open for enrollment by the fall of next year. Given the incompetence of many state legislators, that means a fair number of states are going to start out with federally facilitated exchanges, or at best state-federal partnership exchanges (which is really just a slightly more state-friendly federally facilitated exchange). And it's still an open question as to what that looks like. Presumably some of those states will start making the effort to assume control of their exchanges after June of this year.

But yes, what I'm describing is officially in place as of January 1, 2014.

All selling the same standardized products at the same standardized rates. That's not competition - it's a fixed game, no matter how many players there are.

No, they don't sell the same products and, no, they don't charge the same rates for their products.

What we need, more than anything are non-standard solutions. We need companies trying radically different approaches.

Work a few "fundamentally"s in there and you're at half-Gingrich.

 

[Vidi]

Thanks for the clarification Greenbeard. I thought thats what you meant.

 

[dblack]

No, they don't sell the same products and, no, they don't charge the same rates for their products.

They are all subject to the same standard minimum coverage requirements and all contained withing the same rate limitations. You're equivocating and evading the point. Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options. To pretend otherwise is deliberate deceit.

 

[Greenbeard]

Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options.

Wait, cut-rate insurance coverage is the brilliant innovation you're searching for? Please fucking tell me that's not the "non-standard solution" and "radically different approach" you're trumpeting.

 

[Vidi]

No, they don't sell the same products and, no, they don't charge the same rates for their products.

They are all subject to the same standard minimum coverage requirements and all contained withing the same rate limitations. You're equivocating and evading the point. Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options. To pretend otherwise is deliberate deceit.

Have minimum standards in food products limited choice? Go to any grocery store and see how many choices you have.

Have minimum standards limited the choice of cars we can purchase? How many different makes and models are there?

Minimum standards do not decrease choice, they increase the quality of the product offered.

 

[dblack]

Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options.

Wait, cut-rate insurance coverage is the brilliant innovation you're searching for? Please fucking tell me that's not the "non-standard solution" and "radically different approach" you're trumpeting.

I'm looking for anything that works. We're not going to find out what that is if we dictate solutions and commit everyone to the same standards.

 

[dblack]

No, they don't sell the same products and, no, they don't charge the same rates for their products.

They are all subject to the same standard minimum coverage requirements and all contained withing the same rate limitations. You're equivocating and evading the point. Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options. To pretend otherwise is deliberate deceit.

Have minimum standards in food products limited choice? Go to any grocery store and see how many choices you have.

Have minimum standards limited the choice of cars we can purchase? How many different makes and models are there?

Minimum standards do not decrease choice, they increase the quality of the product offered.

Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options. The presumption that you (or regulators, or the majority) can, should, or even have the right to, decide for the rest of us what constitutes a higher 'quality' product is deeply offensive to the basic idea of freedom.

Seriously, where do you get off deciding for other people what is right for them, whether it comes to food, cars or health care? Why can't you just mind your own business? You wanna stick to "standards"? Go for it! But don't take it up as a mission to force the rest of us to follow your idea of what those standards should be.

 

[taichiliberal]

That's why Greece is bankrupt?
Because Goldman lied?
Because Greece was admitted into the EU?
Or because Greece spends too much? LOL!

Get your head out of Limbaugh's ass and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY what I wrote, chuckles.

But since you're too dense, let me dumb it down for you: Greece's financial state should have made it non-applicable to the EU....but with a little help from Goldman Sachs, they got in....which essentially made them a grave risk to the EU market.

The EU bought into the toxic packages that our banks were putting on the market a'la the housing loan debacle...so when that bubble burst, the EU suffered as well, and Greece being a weak link to begin with, went down.

Do some honest homework to verify what I'm saying, chuckles....because I'm damned tired of doing the legwork for willfully ignorant jokers like you.

The EU had their own housing loan debacles.
See Ireland and Spain.

No shit, sherlock...I never stated otherwise, nor does this change the facts regarding Greece and Goldman Sachs. That you make a moot point is just the stallings of the intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot who can't admit error on any level.

Still waiting for you to prove that Greece's economy was screwed by Goldman.
Or that Greece bought any US mortgages.
Keep trying!

Translation: this dumbfuck doesn't know what's going on, and will stall endlessly rather than do his own homework. Well, since I'm prone to humiliate right wing blowhards like Todd, I'll break tradition. Here's proof of the Greece/Goldman Sachs link

Goldman Secret Greece Loan Shows Two Sinners as Client Unravels - Bloomberg

Greek Debt Crisis: How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html?pagewanted=all

And as to the subprime mortgage fiasco in relation to the EU:

Four Parallels Between Europe's Debt, Sub-Prime Mortgage Crises - Forbes

Part 5-II: Why Did the Credit Crisis Spread to Global Markets? | University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development

And now that I've dispensed with this little detour, let us all not forget that neocons/teabaggers/libertarians STILL cannot fault the Obama Healthcare Reform beyond speculation and denial of the previous reality of our healthcare industry....just ask Dr. Peelo and Wendall Potter.

But suspect that Todd will somehow just avoid acknowledging any facts that disprove his arsenal of talking points, and just parrot squawk his usual drivel and dodges.

 

[taichiliberal]

Get your head out of Limbaugh's ass and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY what I wrote, chuckles.

But since you're too dense, let me dumb it down for you: Greece's financial state should have made it non-applicable to the EU....but with a little help from Goldman Sachs, they got in....which essentially made them a grave risk to the EU market.

The EU bought into the toxic packages that our banks were putting on the market a'la the housing loan debacle...so when that bubble burst, the EU suffered as well, and Greece being a weak link to begin with, went down.

Do some honest homework to verify what I'm saying, chuckles....because I'm damned tired of doing the legwork for willfully ignorant jokers like you.

The EU had their own housing loan debacles.
See Ireland and Spain.

Still waiting for you to prove that Greece's economy was screwed by Goldman.
Or that Greece bought any US mortgages.
Keep trying!

Goldman Sachs was not the CAUSE of Greeces financial troubles, but they did contribute and profit off of it.

( whihc is not the same as causing it )

Goldman Sachs’ role in Greece a real scandal


Theres tons of articles about it with a quick "Greece Goldman Sachs" google, but the long and the short of it is Greece was in financial trouble, they used Goldman Sachs to lie about their true situtatiion, Goldman helped them lie, then bet against Greece and made a huge profit doing it.

Some may say that what Goldman Sachs did was unethical because they basically used insider information to bet against their own client, but they did not CAUSE Greece to collapse.

My point was that with Goldman Sachs chicanery, Greece got into the EU when it shouldn't have....I never said that they were the direct cause of all of Greece's problems.

And my statement regarding the mortgage scandal and the EU stands:

Part 5-II: Why Did the Credit Crisis Spread to Global Markets? | University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development

Todd just doesn't read carefully.

 

[Vidi]

They are all subject to the same standard minimum coverage requirements and all contained withing the same rate limitations. You're equivocating and evading the point. Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options. To pretend otherwise is deliberate deceit.

Have minimum standards in food products limited choice? Go to any grocery store and see how many choices you have.

Have minimum standards limited the choice of cars we can purchase? How many different makes and models are there?

Minimum standards do not decrease choice, they increase the quality of the product offered.

Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options. The presumption that you (or regulators, or the majority) can, should, or even have the right to, decide for the rest of us what constitutes a higher 'quality' product is deeply offensive to the basic idea of freedom.

Seriously, where do you get off deciding for other people what is right for them, whether it comes to food, cars or health care? Why can't you just mind your own business? You wanna stick to "standards"? Go for it! But don't take it up as a mission to force the rest of us to follow your idea of what those standards should be.

Go read Uptons Sinclairs The Jungle and get back to me with that.

Historically, setting minimum standards has not limited competition or consumer choice. No matter how many times you post it...and bold it...it doesnt make it true.

 

[Vidi]

The EU had their own housing loan debacles.
See Ireland and Spain.

Still waiting for you to prove that Greece's economy was screwed by Goldman.
Or that Greece bought any US mortgages.
Keep trying!

Goldman Sachs was not the CAUSE of Greeces financial troubles, but they did contribute and profit off of it.

( whihc is not the same as causing it )

Goldman Sachs’ role in Greece a real scandal


Theres tons of articles about it with a quick "Greece Goldman Sachs" google, but the long and the short of it is Greece was in financial trouble, they used Goldman Sachs to lie about their true situtatiion, Goldman helped them lie, then bet against Greece and made a huge profit doing it.

Some may say that what Goldman Sachs did was unethical because they basically used insider information to bet against their own client, but they did not CAUSE Greece to collapse.

My point was that with Goldman Sachs chicanery, Greece got into the EU when it shouldn't have....I never said that they were the direct cause of all of Greece's problems.

And my statement regarding the mortgage scandal and the EU stands:

Part 5-II: Why Did the Credit Crisis Spread to Global Markets? | University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development

Todd just doesn't read carefully.

I didnt say you did say it. I was answering Todd and showing that while Goldman wasnt the cause, they did help it along and profit from it.