Stop ridiculing Single Payer HC insurance...and think on your own

[nat4900]

[QUOelTE="na4900, post: 18156445, member: 53797"]Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Flat out LIE told again and again by either an uninformed nat4900 or an ignorant nat4900. Nat4900, a devoted follower of Joseph Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

From Forbes magazine:

JUN 30, 2011 @ 03:35 PM
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
[...]
Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

[....]

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

Damn straight, Gov employees are paid too much, promised too much in their pensions, and have much better Health Plans.[/QUOTE]



....and the above IDIOT offers an "opinion piece" from Avik Roy from the far-right Manhattan Institute ..........Roy's HC plan would eliminate, for example, maternity coverage and preventive health care to make premiums cheaper......Roy also advocates for the same HC plans as Switzerland and Singapore..........

Yeah, trust a right wing moron to cite some article ONLY based on the fucking title......LOL

 

[Doc1]

Well sure except that care would now be dictated by the Gov. (shaking my head) You people have one idea, central planning for EVERYTHING.

Hey,MORON.....WHO the fuck is right now "dictating" your health care......Some "loving and caring" CEO from a private insurer??? Some individual who cares ONLY for the company's profits??

Are you idiots really THAT fucked up??? (Rhetorical question....you ARE that fucked up.)

I'd think you'd get tired of me kicking your ass here kid. Your ignorance is too easy to point out. You love you some Central Planning don't you komrade?

 

[Doc1]

[QUOelTE="na4900, post: 18156445, member: 53797"]Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Flat out LIE told again and again by either an uninformed nat4900 or an ignorant nat4900. Nat4900, a devoted follower of Joseph Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

From Forbes magazine:

JUN 30, 2011 @ 03:35 PM
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
[...]
Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

[....]

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

Damn straight, Gov employees are paid too much, promised too much in their pensions, and have much better Health Plans.

....and the above IDIOT offers an "opinion piece" from Avik Roy from the far-right Manhattan Institute ..........Roy's HC plan would eliminate, for example, maternity coverage and preventive health care to make premiums cheaper......Roy also advocates for the same HC plans as Switzerland and Singapore..........

Yeah, trust a right wing moron to cite some article ONLY based on the fucking title......LOL[/QUOTE]

Yawn. The ACA says the State can approve any increase up to 9%, 10% and above and HHS has to approve it.

"Last month, HHS issued preliminary regulations mandated under the federal health reform law that would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any premium increases of 10% or more starting this year, the New York Times reports."

HHS Releases Proposed Rules on Rate Increases for Insurance Premiums

You are an ignorant dumbass.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the reviews would "help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families."

Run Forass run.

 

[nat4900]

You love you some Central Planning don't you komrade?

The English language is a bitch for you, isn't it?????........LOL

 

[Doc1]

Poor Gnut, I own you.

 

[nat4900]

Poor Gnut, I own you.

I doubt you even own more than one pair of shoes.......LOL

 

[Doc1]

Poor Gnut, I own you.

I doubt you even own more than one pair of shoes.......LOL

Clearly you've taken Jake's place as the village idiot.

 

[Markle]

Vermont, home state of Bernie Sanders has thrown in the towel regarding their effort to have Single Payer health care for their state. This, at the same time Bernie Sanders is introducing the same thing in Congress for the United States. Not single thought as to how it the tab could be paid. What a loon!

California passed legislation calling for Single Payer for their bankrupt state. Finally, even California acknowledged that Single Payer health care for California would cost as much as their entire budget. Even THEY trashed the idea.

Here is the Unfunded Liability we have ALREADY for Medicare. More additional debt than our entire National Debt now exceeding $20 TRILLION.

Study the bottom line. Get explanations for each category by holding your cursor over the category on the website.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[nat4900]

Last thing I want is the government to control health care

Yep, better to "trust" private HC insurers

 

[Desperado]

If you want to see how a socialist one payer healthcare system works you need to look no further than our current Veteran's Hospitals work, This is government run healthcare in the real world. How many good things have you heard about the VA? If they were so great why is there a need for a Wounded Warriors group? If you were in the service and spent anytime in a military hospital would you want that as the standard of care for the US population?I think not.

 

[Markle]

[QUOelTE="na4900, post: 18156445, member: 53797"]Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Flat out LIE told again and again by either an uninformed nat4900 or an ignorant nat4900. Nat4900, a devoted follower of Joseph Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

From Forbes magazine:

JUN 30, 2011 @ 03:35 PM
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
[...]
Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

[....]

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

Damn straight, Gov employees are paid too much, promised too much in their pensions, and have much better Health Plans.

....and the above IDIOT offers an "opinion piece" from Avik Roy from the far-right Manhattan Institute ..........Roy's HC plan would eliminate, for example, maternity coverage and preventive health care to make premiums cheaper......Roy also advocates for the same HC plans as Switzerland and Singapore..........

Yeah, trust a right wing moron to cite some article ONLY based on the fucking title......LOL[/QUOTE]

Best part, you cannot refute any of the facts I posted, as always all you can do is whine.

 

[Markle]

Try again Progressives:

Busting Medicare’s “Low Overhead Advantage” Myth
By Bruce McQuain
One of the favorite arguments of the government health care crowd is the supposed Medicare low overhead argument – i.e. Medicare is more efficient than private insurance because its overhead is so much lower than private administrative costs.

[...]

Right now, the Medicare average is 3% and private insurance averages 12%. But Tom Bevan points out, some of that difference is an apples and oranges comparison:

But here’s the catch: because Medicare is devoted to serving a population that is elderly, and therefore in need of greater levels of medical care, it generates significantly higher expenditures than private insurance plans, thus making administrative costs smaller as a percentage of total costs. This creates the appearance that Medicare is a model of administrative efficiency. What Jon Alter sees as a “miracle” is really just a statistical sleight of hand.

Furthermore, Book notes that private insurers have a number of additional expenditures which fall into the category of “administrative costs” (like state health insurance premium taxes of 2-4%, marketing costs, etc) that Medicare does not have, further inflating the apparent differences in cost.

However, when you make an apples to apples comparison, Medicare comes out much worse than private insurance:

But, as you might expect, when you compare administrative costs on a per-person basis, Medicare is dramatically less efficient than private insurance plans. As you can see here, between 2001-2005, Medicare’s administrative costs on a per-person basis were 24.8% higher, on average, than private insurers.

So, contrary to claims of Alter, Krugman, and President Obama, moving tens of millions of Americans into a government run health care option won’t generate any costs savings through lower administrative costs. Just the opposite.

Make sure you click through and check out the real Medicare administrative costs as compared to private industry.

Then there’s waste fraud and abuse. Did you happen to catch that little hand wave at “fraud and abuse” in the first quote touting Medicare’s efficiency? What, pray tell, is one of the primary jobs of an administive system? Would you imagine it to be the elimination of fraud and abuse – or said another way, to ensure that the company pays legitimate claims and avoids fraudulent and unnecessary payments?

How efficient is a system which is awash in both fraud and abuse? And, without profit, what incentive do they have to eliminate it?

John Stossel takes that part of the “Medicare efficiency” myth apart:

But there’s a bigger point – the connection between “low” administrative costs and staggeringly HIGH levels of fraud and waste. As Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute and Regina Herzlinger at Harvard Business School have pointed out, much of the 10 to 20 percent of private insurance administrative costs goes to preventing fraud. Private insurers, you see, care about whether or not they lose money. Medicare, with its unlimited claim on the public purse, does not. It’s only taxpayer money, after all.

The results are predictable, but breathtaking nonetheless: an estimated $68 billion (with a B) in outright Medicare fraud every year (About $3 billion in Miami-Dade county ALONE.) On top of that, according to well-respected Dartmouth researchers, roughly a third of Medicare’s total $400 billion annual spending goes to procedures which were medically unnecessary.

That’s, on average, 68 billion every year. Imagine a private insurance company surviving with loss figures like that. But as Stossel points out, without an incentive to eliminate fraud and abuse, it continues year after year after year, with politicians and Medicare administrators tut-tutting but never really doing anything about it.

[...]

Busting Medicare’s “Low Overhead Advantage” Myth | Questions and Observations

 

[Rustic]

Single payer = nothing to do with real health care, but all about control... fact

 

[BulletProof]

All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny. Insurers, for example, under the federal antitrust exemption may be able to meet, share information and agree on pricing for premiums.

Yawn. The ACA says the State can approve any increase up to 9%, 10% and above and HHS has to approve it.

"Last month, HHS issued preliminary regulations mandated under the federal health reform law that would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any premium increases of 10% or more starting this year, the New York Times reports."

HHS Releases Proposed Rules on Rate Increases for Insurance Premiums

You are an ignorant dumbass.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the reviews would "help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families."

Hey, ignorant dumbass, when it comes to the need of the sate approving insurance rate increases, it goes to show anyone who's not an ignorant dumbass that there is a severe lack of competition.

 

[Doc1]

All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny. Insurers, for example, under the federal antitrust exemption may be able to meet, share information and agree on pricing for premiums.

Yawn. The ACA says the State can approve any increase up to 9%, 10% and above and HHS has to approve it.

"Last month, HHS issued preliminary regulations mandated under the federal health reform law that would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any premium increases of 10% or more starting this year, the New York Times reports."

HHS Releases Proposed Rules on Rate Increases for Insurance Premiums

You are an ignorant dumbass.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the reviews would "help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families."

Hey, ignorant dumbass, when it comes to the need of the sate approving insurance rate increases, it goes to show anyone who's not an ignorant dumbass that there is a severe lack of competition.

Hey dumbass, the HHS controls the rate increases and the lack of competition is due to the ACA. I truly dislike stupid people like you kid.

 

[BulletProof]

All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny. Insurers, for example, under the federal antitrust exemption may be able to meet, share information and agree on pricing for premiums.

Yawn. The ACA says the State can approve any increase up to 9%, 10% and above and HHS has to approve it.

"Last month, HHS issued preliminary regulations mandated under the federal health reform law that would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any premium increases of 10% or more starting this year, the New York Times reports."

HHS Releases Proposed Rules on Rate Increases for Insurance Premiums

You are an ignorant dumbass.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the reviews would "help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families."

Hey, ignorant dumbass, when it comes to the need of the sate approving insurance rate increases, it goes to show anyone who's not an ignorant dumbass that there is a severe lack of competition.

Hey dumbass, the HHS controls the rate increases and the lack of competition is due to the ACA. I truly dislike stupid people like you kid.

You're such a dumbass faggot. I said from the start the government practically bans competition between insurance companies (and, between drug companies, and between hospitals, etc.), and the ACA made that ban stronger.

 

[Doc1]

All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny. Insurers, for example, under the federal antitrust exemption may be able to meet, share information and agree on pricing for premiums.

Yawn. The ACA says the State can approve any increase up to 9%, 10% and above and HHS has to approve it.

"Last month, HHS issued preliminary regulations mandated under the federal health reform law that would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any premium increases of 10% or more starting this year, the New York Times reports."

HHS Releases Proposed Rules on Rate Increases for Insurance Premiums

You are an ignorant dumbass.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the reviews would "help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families."

Hey, ignorant dumbass, when it comes to the need of the sate approving insurance rate increases, it goes to show anyone who's not an ignorant dumbass that there is a severe lack of competition.

Hey dumbass, the HHS controls the rate increases and the lack of competition is due to the ACA. I truly dislike stupid people like you kid.

You're such a dumbass faggot. I said from the start the government practically bans competition between insurance companies (and, between drug companies, and between hospitals, etc.), and the ACA made that ban stronger.

Then what the fuck are you crying about asshole?

 

[Doc1]

All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny. Insurers, for example, under the federal antitrust exemption may be able to meet, share information and agree on pricing for premiums.

Yawn. The ACA says the State can approve any increase up to 9%, 10% and above and HHS has to approve it.

"Last month, HHS issued preliminary regulations mandated under the federal health reform law that would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any premium increases of 10% or more starting this year, the New York Times reports."

HHS Releases Proposed Rules on Rate Increases for Insurance Premiums

You are an ignorant dumbass.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the reviews would "help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families."

Hey, ignorant dumbass, when it comes to the need of the sate approving insurance rate increases, it goes to show anyone who's not an ignorant dumbass that there is a severe lack of competition.

As I showed you punk, below 10% and the State approves or denies it. ABOVE 10% HHS does it. Dumbass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I would support single payer if we execute all the freeloaders and we all get M249s.

 

[BulletProof]

All that's left to do is to squeeze out excessive profits of insurance companies by allowing real competition.

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the power to regulate the "business of insurance," granting insurers a limited exemption from federal antitrust scrutiny. Insurers, for example, under the federal antitrust exemption may be able to meet, share information and agree on pricing for premiums.

Yawn. The ACA says the State can approve any increase up to 9%, 10% and above and HHS has to approve it.

"Last month, HHS issued preliminary regulations mandated under the federal health reform law that would require health insurance companies to disclose and justify any premium increases of 10% or more starting this year, the New York Times reports."

HHS Releases Proposed Rules on Rate Increases for Insurance Premiums

You are an ignorant dumbass.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the reviews would "help rein in the kind of excessive and unreasonable rate increases that have made insurance unaffordable for so many families."

Hey, ignorant dumbass, when it comes to the need of the sate approving insurance rate increases, it goes to show anyone who's not an ignorant dumbass that there is a severe lack of competition.

As I showed you punk, below 10% and the State approves or denies it. ABOVE 10% HHS does it. Dumbass.

You pathetically stupid creature, it doesn't make any difference to anything I said who approves rate increases. Please stop inviting me to call you stupid.