Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[sangha]

I'm not sure how much more credible you can get than the department of labor.

Let me know when the DoL issues a report on the $ of income spent on healthcare by the FRENCH!!

You're the one making shit up now. Mr. I'm just going to count the empoyers contribution against a person's income and come up with some imaginary figure of what someone might be paid if employers weren't covering part of the health care cost. You can dislike it all you want. But if we're going to talk about percent of income then the numbers in it actually have to be part of someone's realized income, not whatever you think it might be under different circumstances.

You're making up imaginary #'s and you think I'm the one making shit up now?

And no, I'm not hung up on that stat.

Youre' not? Then why do you keep bringing it up?

If you don't like it, take it up with Greenbeard, or better yet the department of labor. As to who is left out you can't even keep your own bullshit straight. Are we talking about milatary personal AND the institutionalized now? Or just military people who have been institutonalized as you have written above? Either way you really think it's going to add that significantly to the number? OR.......if you just don't like what percent of income represents, which I suspect is the case, pick something else to talk about and we'll move on.

I clearly stated that the study excluded people in the military and the institutionalized. If you can't figure out what that means, I can't help you.

And for the love of God move the the fuck on if you don't care about percent of income spent on health care. You've been so fucking busy trying to show the number isn't accurate even though you have ZERO evidence for that, that we haven't even begun to discuss what it actually means in terms of the benefits of socialized medicine.

Wingnuts like you think criticism is censorship. That's why you really do believe that I have prevented you from discussing "what it actually means"

Your failure to make a point is your failure, not mine.

Do I really want to talk about this? Fuck no. The stat in of itself is meaningless. There can be all kinds of reasons it could be higher in one country than another that has nothing to do with the type of health care system used. I would rather talk about what you keep avoiding; the sustainability of the such a system which explained earlier.

Ah, so you want to go back to the "a program with a one year deficit is unsustainable" argument? Go right ahead

Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable

 

[Bern80]

Let me know when the DoL issues a report on the $ of income spent on healthcare by the FRENCH!!

What does that have to do with anything?

You're making up imaginary #'s and you think I'm the one making shit up now?

Please cite the numbers I have made up since citing the DoL source.

Wingnuts like you think criticism is censorship. That's why you really do believe that I have prevented you from discussing "what it actually means"

Your failure to make a point is your failure, not mine.

I never accussed you of preventing anything. I stated we haven't gotten to that part of the discussion yet because you insist on disagreeing with accuracy of the statistics provided, in truth, for no other reason than that they do not reflect your opinion.

Ah, so you want to go back to the "a program with a one year deficit is unsustainable" argument? Go right ahead

Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable

Are you sure you want to insist the French system has only run at a deficit once? It has run at a deficit for the last 5 years and is only projected to get worse. Now consider the fact that no matter who does the paying or how, resources still need to be paid for. One of those resources is of course the doctors, who in france make roughly half of what doctors in the U.S. make and they STILL have a deficit. Think every doctor in the U.S. is ready to take a 50% pay cut for your wonderful idea?

 

[sangha]

Ah, so you want to go back to the "a program with a one year deficit is unsustainable" argument? Go right ahead

Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable

Are you sure you want to insist the French system has only run at a deficit once? It has run at a deficit for the last 5 years and is only projected to get worse. Now consider the fact that no matter who does the paying or how, resources still need to be paid for. One of those resources is of course the doctors, who in france make roughly half of what doctors in the U.S. make and they STILL have a deficit. Think every doctor in the U.S. is ready to take a 50% pay cut for your wonderful idea?

I see that, once again, you have totally failed. I'll ask again

Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable

 

[Bern80]

Ah, so you want to go back to the "a program with a one year deficit is unsustainable" argument? Go right ahead

Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable

Are you sure you want to insist the French system has only run at a deficit once? It has run at a deficit for the last 5 years and is only projected to get worse. Now consider the fact that no matter who does the paying or how, resources still need to be paid for. One of those resources is of course the doctors, who in france make roughly half of what doctors in the U.S. make and they STILL have a deficit. Think every doctor in the U.S. is ready to take a 50% pay cut for your wonderful idea?

I see that, once again, you have totally failed. I'll ask again

Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable

Are you sure your not the one making up stats now. Where exactly did you find defense budget figures going back to George Washington?

I already explained why it's unsustainable several pages ago, but you chose to claim some 'other' stats provided by the government were not even close to accurate.

 

[jgarden]

Price of health care and administration overheads

In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.

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

The question opponents of universal healthcare should be asking is why the US government is spending $604 (US) more per capita ($2724(US)) for a largely "private" system, than the Canadian government is spending ($2,120(US)) on its "public" system?

A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%, comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%), U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to $752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health care system.

While "administrative costs" of the American private sector (11.7%) compared well with its Canadian counterpart (13.2%), overall expeditures for administration were almost double in the US.

The most glaring difference emerged from costs associated with the "provincial single-payer insurance system," - the so-called inefficient government sector which had an operating overhead of just 1.3%.

 

[Bern80]

Price of health care and administration overheads

In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question opponents of universal healthcare should be asking is why the US government is spending $604 (US) more per capita ($2724(US)) for a largely "private" system, than the Canadian government is spending ($2,120(US)) on its "public" system?

A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%, comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%), U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to $752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health care system.

While "administrative costs" of the American private sector (11.7%) compared well with its Canadian counterpart (13.2%), overall expeditures for administration were almost double in the US.

The most glaring difference emerged from costs associated with the "provincial single-payer insurance system," - the so-called inefficient government sector which had an operating overhead of just 1.3%.

I don't dispute what we pay per capita or the numbers you posted. I dispute the insistance that a government solution to those issues is the best solution.

 

[sangha]

Are you sure you want to insist the French system has only run at a deficit once? It has run at a deficit for the last 5 years and is only projected to get worse. Now consider the fact that no matter who does the paying or how, resources still need to be paid for. One of those resources is of course the doctors, who in france make roughly half of what doctors in the U.S. make and they STILL have a deficit. Think every doctor in the U.S. is ready to take a 50% pay cut for your wonderful idea?

I see that, once again, you have totally failed. I'll ask again

Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable

Are you sure your not the one making up stats now. Where exactly did you find defense budget figures going back to George Washington?

I already explained why it's unsustainable several pages ago, but you chose to claim some 'other' stats provided by the government were not even close to accurate.

Do you really think that the DoD has EVER run a surplus? If you're that deluded, then please explain how the DoD budget could possibly run a surplus

And you never explained why the DoD is unsustainable. Please be honest about this

 

[sangha]

Price of health care and administration overheads

In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question opponents of universal healthcare should be asking is why the US government is spending $604 (US) more per capita ($2724(US)) for a largely "private" system, than the Canadian government is spending ($2,120(US)) on its "public" system?

A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%, comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%), U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to $752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health care system.

While "administrative costs" of the American private sector (11.7%) compared well with its Canadian counterpart (13.2%), overall expeditures for administration were almost double in the US.

The most glaring difference emerged from costs associated with the "provincial single-payer insurance system," - the so-called inefficient government sector which had an operating overhead of just 1.3%.

I don't dispute what we pay per capita or the numbers you posted. I dispute the insistance that a government solution to those issues is the best solution.

You haven't "disputed" anything. You have asserted a claim that a govt solution is a bad solution, but you haven't posted any facts to back up your assertion. In fact, you havent even posted an argument (ie an assertion thats backed up by facts)

 

[jgarden]

The problem with "Obamacare" is that it doesn't go far enough to create a national "inified" health system that would reduce "operational costs" (1.6%) comparable to those associated with Canada.

The more "fragmented" the US system becomes in an effort to pacify the vested interests of the "private" sector, the more money is being siphoned-off from medical to non-medical purposes (ie administration)!

Now might be a good time for our conservatives "friends" to provide an example of even 1 private health system that can match the costs and health outcomes of their neighbor to the North

The liberals have been long been reduced to operating on a "playing field" that is anything but level - its about time our conservative "friends" produced a "working model" of a private healthcare system so it can held up to the same level of scrutiny that the "right" has used when dismissing what they consider more "socialist" approaches.

 

[Bern80]

The problem with "Obamacare" is that it doesn't go far enough to create a national "inified" health system that would reduce "operational costs" (1.6%) comparable to those associated with Canada.

The more "fragmented" the US system becomes in an effort to pacify the vested interests of the "private" sector, the more money is being siphoned-off from medical to non-medical purposes (ie administration)!

Now might be a good time for our conservatives "friends" to provide an example of even 1 private health system that can match the costs and health outcomes of their neighbor to the North

The liberals have been long been reduced to operating on a "playing field" that is anything but level - its about time our conservative "friends" produced a "working model" of a private healthcare system so it can held up to the same level of scrutiny that the "right" has used when dismissing what they consider more "socialist" approaches.

And it's time our liberal 'friends' start seeing that government is the problem, not the solution. The problems with health care in this country, mainly cost to the consumer, are not result of too much free market. You need to consider the possibility that it is a result of not enough. You need to consider that low cost to the consumer is not the defining characteristic of a good health care system. Certainly it's part of it, but other factors need to wieghed as well. How the resources in the system paid for? Do people have adequate access to service (not the same thing as affordability)?

Part of our problem is we've never allowed the market to determine what the true cost of service ought to be. Another part of it is in looking for a solution, liberals never want to look at themselves. You want health care costs to go down? I have a solution that costs NOTHING. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF. We are an amazingly unhealthy country. And the galling thing is, unlike some 3rd world countries, we have the resources to be healthy.

 

[Gadawg73]

The problem with "Obamacare" is that it doesn't go far enough to create a national "inified" health system that would reduce "operational costs" (1.6%) comparable to those associated with Canada.

The more "fragmented" the US system becomes in an effort to pacify the vested interests of the "private" sector, the more money is being siphoned-off from medical to non-medical purposes (ie administration)!

Now might be a good time for our conservatives "friends" to provide an example of even 1 private health system that can match the costs and health outcomes of their neighbor to the North

The liberals have been long been reduced to operating on a "playing field" that is anything but level - its about time our conservative "friends" produced a "working model" of a private healthcare system so it can held up to the same level of scrutiny that the "right" has used when dismissing what they consider more "socialist" approaches.

And it's time our liberal 'friends' start seeing that government is the problem, not the solution. The problems with health care in this country, mainly cost to the consumer, are not result of too much free market. You need to consider the possibility that it is a result of not enough. You need to consider that low cost to the consumer is not the defining characteristic of a good health care system. Certainly it's part of it, but other factors need to wieghed as well. How the resources in the system paid for? Do people have adequate access to service (not the same thing as affordability)?

Part of our problem is we've never allowed the market to determine what the true cost of service ought to be. Another part of it is in looking for a solution, liberals never want to look at themselves. You want health care costs to go down? I have a solution that costs NOTHING. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF. We are an amazingly unhealthy country. And the galling thing is, unlike some 3rd world countries, we have the resources to be healthy.

Good post.
Government is not the solution but the current group health insurance paid disease care we now have that pays 60% of all health care dollars for 4% of the population is a business, not a health care, model.
Profits are in the disease care for health care businesses.
The current system is unsustainable and broken and needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. Insurance benefit "I get my health care for free" model is the problem.
Group health care has ruined American "health" care.

 

[Bern80]

The problem with "Obamacare" is that it doesn't go far enough to create a national "inified" health system that would reduce "operational costs" (1.6%) comparable to those associated with Canada.

The more "fragmented" the US system becomes in an effort to pacify the vested interests of the "private" sector, the more money is being siphoned-off from medical to non-medical purposes (ie administration)!

Now might be a good time for our conservatives "friends" to provide an example of even 1 private health system that can match the costs and health outcomes of their neighbor to the North

The liberals have been long been reduced to operating on a "playing field" that is anything but level - its about time our conservative "friends" produced a "working model" of a private healthcare system so it can held up to the same level of scrutiny that the "right" has used when dismissing what they consider more "socialist" approaches.

And it's time our liberal 'friends' start seeing that government is the problem, not the solution. The problems with health care in this country, mainly cost to the consumer, are not result of too much free market. You need to consider the possibility that it is a result of not enough. You need to consider that low cost to the consumer is not the defining characteristic of a good health care system. Certainly it's part of it, but other factors need to wieghed as well. How the resources in the system paid for? Do people have adequate access to service (not the same thing as affordability)?

Part of our problem is we've never allowed the market to determine what the true cost of service ought to be. Another part of it is in looking for a solution, liberals never want to look at themselves. You want health care costs to go down? I have a solution that costs NOTHING. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF. We are an amazingly unhealthy country. And the galling thing is, unlike some 3rd world countries, we have the resources to be healthy.

Good post.
Government is not the solution but the current group health insurance paid disease care we now have that pays 60% of all health care dollars for 4% of the population is a business, not a health care, model.
Profits are in the disease care for health care businesses.
The current system is unsustainable and broken and needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. Insurance benefit "I get my health care for free" model is the problem.
Group health care has ruined American "health" care.

I agree. I don't like the government solution, but the insurance model isn't so great either. There needs to be a way that cost of care more directly affects the individual in my opinion. Something that encourages more responsibility of one's health care dollars. Most people pay their premiums and don't think much more about it. At the very least the insurance industry needs to be much less regulated which i think would give them the opportunity to provide plans with a much higher degree of customization and shoudl bring premium cost down.

Another would be some way of encouraging people to pay the service provider directly. This would also bring costs down since someone is more likely to shop around to find the least expensive clinic to have an x-ray done or whate have you.

 

[Gadawg73]

And it's time our liberal 'friends' start seeing that government is the problem, not the solution. The problems with health care in this country, mainly cost to the consumer, are not result of too much free market. You need to consider the possibility that it is a result of not enough. You need to consider that low cost to the consumer is not the defining characteristic of a good health care system. Certainly it's part of it, but other factors need to wieghed as well. How the resources in the system paid for? Do people have adequate access to service (not the same thing as affordability)?

Part of our problem is we've never allowed the market to determine what the true cost of service ought to be. Another part of it is in looking for a solution, liberals never want to look at themselves. You want health care costs to go down? I have a solution that costs NOTHING. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF. We are an amazingly unhealthy country. And the galling thing is, unlike some 3rd world countries, we have the resources to be healthy.

Good post.
Government is not the solution but the current group health insurance paid disease care we now have that pays 60% of all health care dollars for 4% of the population is a business, not a health care, model.
Profits are in the disease care for health care businesses.
The current system is unsustainable and broken and needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. Insurance benefit "I get my health care for free" model is the problem.
Group health care has ruined American "health" care.

I agree. I don't like the government solution, but the insurance model isn't so great either. There needs to be a way that cost of care more directly affects the individual in my opinion. Something that encourages more responsibility of one's health care dollars. Most people pay their premiums and don't think much more about it. At the very least the insurance industry needs to be much less regulated which i think would give them the opportunity to provide plans with a much higher degree of customization and shoudl bring premium cost down.

Another would be some way of encouraging people to pay the service provider directly. This would also bring costs down since someone is more likely to shop around to find the least expensive clinic to have an x-ray done or whate have you.

No, most people don't pay any premiums. Their employer pays it.
How come your auto insurance does not pay for oil changes and tires?
How come your home owners doesn't pay for new HVAC and paint?
Benefit health insurance has ruined the system.
We need to end it and go back to YOU negotiate and pay for your health insurance and care and EVERYONE does that.
"I get mine for free" mentality in the insurance health care market and Medicare is bankrupting the country.

 

[sangha]

And it's time our liberal 'friends' start seeing that government is the problem, not the solution. The problems with health care in this country, mainly cost to the consumer, are not result of too much free market. You need to consider the possibility that it is a result of not enough. You need to consider that low cost to the consumer is not the defining characteristic of a good health care system. Certainly it's part of it, but other factors need to wieghed as well. How the resources in the system paid for? Do people have adequate access to service (not the same thing as affordability)?

Part of our problem is we've never allowed the market to determine what the true cost of service ought to be. Another part of it is in looking for a solution, liberals never want to look at themselves. You want health care costs to go down? I have a solution that costs NOTHING. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF. We are an amazingly unhealthy country. And the galling thing is, unlike some 3rd world countries, we have the resources to be healthy.

Good post.
Government is not the solution but the current group health insurance paid disease care we now have that pays 60% of all health care dollars for 4% of the population is a business, not a health care, model.
Profits are in the disease care for health care businesses.
The current system is unsustainable and broken and needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. Insurance benefit "I get my health care for free" model is the problem.
Group health care has ruined American "health" care.

I agree. I don't like the government solution, but the insurance model isn't so great either. There needs to be a way that cost of care more directly affects the individual in my opinion. Something that encourages more responsibility of one's health care dollars. Most people pay their premiums and don't think much more about it. At the very least the insurance industry needs to be much less regulated which i think would give them the opportunity to provide plans with a much higher degree of customization and shoudl bring premium cost down.

Another would be some way of encouraging people to pay the service provider directly. This would also bring costs down since someone is more likely to shop around to find the least expensive clinic to have an x-ray done or whate have you.

The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.

Basically, reality has proven that your solutions (less regulation, more out of pocket expenses) leads to a more expensive, and less effective, health care system.

 

[sangha]

Good post.
Government is not the solution but the current group health insurance paid disease care we now have that pays 60% of all health care dollars for 4% of the population is a business, not a health care, model.
Profits are in the disease care for health care businesses.
The current system is unsustainable and broken and needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. Insurance benefit "I get my health care for free" model is the problem.
Group health care has ruined American "health" care.

I agree. I don't like the government solution, but the insurance model isn't so great either. There needs to be a way that cost of care more directly affects the individual in my opinion. Something that encourages more responsibility of one's health care dollars. Most people pay their premiums and don't think much more about it. At the very least the insurance industry needs to be much less regulated which i think would give them the opportunity to provide plans with a much higher degree of customization and shoudl bring premium cost down.

Another would be some way of encouraging people to pay the service provider directly. This would also bring costs down since someone is more likely to shop around to find the least expensive clinic to have an x-ray done or whate have you.

No, most people don't pay any premiums. Their employer pays it.
How come your auto insurance does not pay for oil changes and tires?
How come your home owners doesn't pay for new HVAC and paint?
Benefit health insurance has ruined the system.
We need to end it and go back to YOU negotiate and pay for your health insurance and care and EVERYONE does that.
"I get mine for free" mentality in the insurance health care market and Medicare is bankrupting the country.

Wrong. Most people pay at least half of their premiums. Few employers pay %100 of the premium

Every year, employers negotiate with the insurers over the benefits and premiums. No corp is forced to buy insurance. And once a corp sets up group coverage for it's employees', no one is forced to become a member of the group.

Everyone is free to go out and negotiate for their own health care. You could do that today, if you weren't such a whiny fraud.

 

[Gadawg73]

I agree. I don't like the government solution, but the insurance model isn't so great either. There needs to be a way that cost of care more directly affects the individual in my opinion. Something that encourages more responsibility of one's health care dollars. Most people pay their premiums and don't think much more about it. At the very least the insurance industry needs to be much less regulated which i think would give them the opportunity to provide plans with a much higher degree of customization and shoudl bring premium cost down.

Another would be some way of encouraging people to pay the service provider directly. This would also bring costs down since someone is more likely to shop around to find the least expensive clinic to have an x-ray done or whate have you.

No, most people don't pay any premiums. Their employer pays it.
How come your auto insurance does not pay for oil changes and tires?
How come your home owners doesn't pay for new HVAC and paint?
Benefit health insurance has ruined the system.
We need to end it and go back to YOU negotiate and pay for your health insurance and care and EVERYONE does that.
"I get mine for free" mentality in the insurance health care market and Medicare is bankrupting the country.

Wrong. Most people pay at least half of their premiums. Few employers pay %100 of the premium

Every year, employers negotiate with the insurers over the benefits and premiums. No corp is forced to buy insurance. And once a corp sets up group coverage for it's employees', no one is forced to become a member of the group.

Everyone is free to go out and negotiate for their own health care. You could do that today, if you weren't such a whiny fraud.

Name one large corporation, government employee, retiree, competitive industry (yes, we still have them) where the employees "pay at least half of their premiums"?
Where are they and who are they other than low end dish washing jobs?

I own 3 corporations and spend tens of thousands each year on health coverage. Under the current competitive system, which in the end kills us in the world market as health coverage is so much higher here which reflects in lower gross profits, employers are forced to offer a better compensation package than their competitors for the best talent. That is how it always happens in my, the REAL, world. If you do not have a fine health package for your employees Moe then the next guy WILL offer it and you are at a competitive disadvantage. Talent seeks the best benefit package. That is how business works in the free market. That is how IT ALWAYS WORKS.
And guess what Moe? When I go and negotiate yearly for my plans over the last 25 years, EACH AND EVERY year the premiums go up at least 10-15% a year for less coverage.
Part of your argument is true and it supports my thesis 100% but you are more interested in calling childish names it goes 20 feet over your head. Under the current system employees are getting LESS COVERAGE every year with more co-pays and higher deductibles because of the exorbitant costs. And why are costs rising? Over demand with kids going to the doctor with a common cold. Just one example of dozens but over demand has to be paid for. And group health care pays the tab.
Let me educate you as to the history of group health care as a benefit. During WWII ALL United States businesses WERE PROHIBITED FROM GIVING RAISES to employees. So what did they do to attract the best workers? They offered health care as a benefit. That was not considered a raise. That was not practiced until then. Now take a long look at what happened: Before this YOU, not the insurance company, WERE THE CUSTOMER. YOU paid the bill. After that the insurance company was the customer as they pay the bills. Now we have the insurance companies defining the coverage, what doctors and hospitals will get paid and who gets what.
Where did I claim everyone has to buy group insurance and that everyone can not go and buy their own? Private policies are far higher as they, at an average of less than 10K a year HAVE LITTLE OR NO LEVERAGE than an employer negotiating per employee for a company of 1000-50,000 workers as an example. The more employees in large group plans the less profit an insurance company makes per employee. And they admit that is why they have to charge the private market single insureds so much more. Just the facts.
Fact is that group health care has run the price up with the demand of "My employer pays it and it is free".
How come your car insurance does not pay your oil changes and tires?
How come your home owners does not pay for new carpet, new HVAC and paint?
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT NEGOTIATED BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS in that type of a competitive market where THE DEMAND is there for it. That demand IS IN THE group health care benefit market.
I know as I have been self employed for 30 years, sold health and other insurance for 2years and deal with health insurance issues DAILY as CEO of 3 corporations.
The current system is unsustainable and will bankrupt the country within 2 decades. What we have is blank check health care for seniors and over demand in the benefit group health care system in a disease care model where 60% of all the $$ goes to 4% of the population.
You may not like the facts but that is your ignorance. All I do is post FACTS.

 

[mdn2000]

The question opponents of universal healthcare should be asking is why the US government is spending $604 (US) more per capita ($2724(US)) for a largely "private" system, than the Canadian government is spending ($2,120(US)) on its "public" system?


While "administrative costs" of the American private sector (11.7%) compared well with its Canadian counterpart (13.2%), overall expeditures for administration were almost double in the US.

The most glaring difference emerged from costs associated with the "provincial single-payer insurance system," - the so-called inefficient government sector which had an operating overhead of just 1.3%.

I don't dispute what we pay per capita or the numbers you posted. I dispute the insistance that a government solution to those issues is the best solution.

You haven't "disputed" anything. You have asserted a claim that a govt solution is a bad solution, but you haven't posted any facts to back up your assertion. In fact, you havent even posted an argument (ie an assertion thats backed up by facts)

We have no facts proving the government solution is a good solution. We do have facts that show the government does a bad job at many things. Take the George Bush presidency, some argue that is a great example of government doing a bad job. Now we have the same government stating they can run a better health care system. Prices have gone up and people are dropped now and its barely even gotten started.

 

[Bern80]

The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.

Basically, reality has proven that your solutions (less regulation, more out of pocket expenses) leads to a more expensive, and less effective, health care system.

Again you are only looking at the cost to the consumer. You simply can not consider that the defining factor of what constitutes a good health care system. You keep glossing over how these wonder systems of yours are funded and the reality is they are heavily subsidized and are STILL under funded. Claiming the do it at a lower cost is a bit of a red herring when you consider that lower cost is artificially mandated either by government mandating how much they will pay for resources are simply the inability to fund them.

Look at France again. There doctors make about half of what ours make. And their government STILL can't pay for all of the resources. This is has been going on for about the last 5 years or so in France and is not projected to get any better. Their government is now being forced to make decisions about how much it will reimburse and what procedures it will pay for. The way France has chosen to pay for health care does not meet the cost of the demand on resources. THAT is the definition of unsustainable. Market forces are immutabele. They take over eventually. The actions France is having to take is proving that. They may have started out with a system that cost the taxpayers little money and meat their demands but that is slowly being eroded away as the government does away with paying for certain things.

 

[Gadawg73]

The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.

Basically, reality has proven that your solutions (less regulation, more out of pocket expenses) leads to a more expensive, and less effective, health care system.

Again you are only looking at the cost to the consumer. You simply can not consider that the defining factor of what constitutes a good health care system. You keep glossing over how these wonder systems of yours are funded and the reality is they are heavily subsidized and are STILL under funded. Claiming the do it at a lower cost is a bit of a red herring when you consider that lower cost is artificially mandated either by government mandating how much they will pay for resources are simply the inability to fund them.

Look at France again. There doctors make about half of what ours make. And their government STILL can't pay for all of the resources. This is has been going on for about the last 5 years or so in France and is not projected to get any better. Their government is now being forced to make decisions about how much it will reimburse and what procedures it will pay for. The way France has chosen to pay for health care does not meet the cost of the demand on resources. THAT is the definition of unsustainable.

True but our government is now borrowing 40% of the costs of Medicare which pays private doctors and hospitals under the disease care model I have posted the facts on.
How does a family pay a health care premium to an insurance company in 15 years that will be over 20K per family on average?
How does a nation function when 33% of GNP will be health care in 2 decades?
This system is unsustainable as a group health care private insurance health care model.
NO ONE will face the facts.

 

[sangha]

No, most people don't pay any premiums. Their employer pays it.
How come your auto insurance does not pay for oil changes and tires?
How come your home owners doesn't pay for new HVAC and paint?
Benefit health insurance has ruined the system.
We need to end it and go back to YOU negotiate and pay for your health insurance and care and EVERYONE does that.
"I get mine for free" mentality in the insurance health care market and Medicare is bankrupting the country.

Wrong. Most people pay at least half of their premiums. Few employers pay %100 of the premium

Every year, employers negotiate with the insurers over the benefits and premiums. No corp is forced to buy insurance. And once a corp sets up group coverage for it's employees', no one is forced to become a member of the group.

Everyone is free to go out and negotiate for their own health care. You could do that today, if you weren't such a whiny fraud.

Name one large corporation, government employee, retiree, competitive industry (yes, we still have them) where the employees "pay at least half of their premiums"?
Where are they and who are they other than low end dish washing jobs?

Most people do not work for a large corporation but Wal Mart only pays half the premium

I own 3 corporations and spend tens of thousands each year on health coverage. Under the current competitive system, which in the end kills us in the world market as health coverage is so much higher here which reflects in lower gross profits, employers are forced to offer a better compensation package than their competitors for the best talent. That is how it always happens in my, the REAL, world. If you do not have a fine health package for your employees Moe then the next guy WILL offer it and you are at a competitive disadvantage. Talent seeks the best benefit package. That is how business works in the free market. That is how IT ALWAYS WORKS.

If you can't run your business at a profit, that's YOUR fault.

And guess what Moe? When I go and negotiate yearly for my plans over the last 25 years, EACH AND EVERY year the premiums go up at least 10-15% a year for less coverage.
Part of your argument is true and it supports my thesis 100% but you are more interested in calling childish names it goes 20 feet over your head. Under the current system employees are getting LESS COVERAGE every year with more co-pays and higher deductibles because of the exorbitant costs. And why are costs rising? Over demand with kids going to the doctor with a common cold. Just one example of dozens but over demand has to be paid for. And group health care pays the tab.
Let me educate you as to the history of group health care as a benefit. During WWII ALL United States businesses WERE PROHIBITED FROM GIVING RAISES to employees. So what did they do to attract the best workers? They offered health care as a benefit. That was not considered a raise. That was not practiced until then. Now take a long look at what happened: Before this YOU, not the insurance company, WERE THE CUSTOMER. YOU paid the bill. After that the insurance company was the customer as they pay the bills. Now we have the insurance companies defining the coverage, what doctors and hospitals will get paid and who gets what.
Where did I claim everyone has to buy group insurance and that everyone can not go and buy their own? Private policies are far higher as they, at an average of less than 10K a year HAVE LITTLE OR NO LEVERAGE than an employer negotiating per employee for a company of 1000-50,000 workers as an example. The more employees in large group plans the less profit an insurance company makes per employee. And they admit that is why they have to charge the private market single insureds so much more. Just the facts.
Fact is that group health care has run the price up with the demand of "My employer pays it and it is free".
How come your car insurance does not pay your oil changes and tires?
How come your home owners does not pay for new carpet, new HVAC and paint?
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT NEGOTIATED BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS in that type of a competitive market where THE DEMAND is there for it. That demand IS IN THE group health care benefit market.
I know as I have been self employed for 30 years, sold health and other insurance for 2years and deal with health insurance issues DAILY as CEO of 3 corporations.
The current system is unsustainable and will bankrupt the country within 2 decades. What we have is blank check health care for seniors and over demand in the benefit group health care system in a disease care model where 60% of all the $$ goes to 4% of the population.
You may not like the facts but that is your ignorance. All I do is post FACTS.

Do you have a point? You claim to be posting facts but all you have is your anecdotes about you have so much trouble running a business. I don't think your business incompetence is an argument for health care deregulation.