Yay Government health care:(

[wade]

I miss understood what you said as well Austin. I'm sorry I called you a Democrat.

 

[tyflier]

Well Austin than I misunderstood you because that was my point exactly The government will lose money on this health care bill and anyone silly enough to invest in it might as well kiss that money goodbye because theres no way government will make a profit with a plan as widespread as this.

Government isn't SUPPOSED to make a profit. The healthcare legislation that was just passed is not designed as a means for the government to suddenly become it's own business entity, and make a profit off of the people that put money into the pool. It designed to hold a pool from which medical bills can be paid.

So let's see...

Corporate insurance averages 2-6% profit depending on their market share, they have, on average, 30% of their overhead relegated to marketing, and they invest "billions every year"(your words, not mine) in R&D. Let's not forget yearly CEO "bonuses" to the tune of multi-millions per company and yearly salary increases to the tune of multi-millions per company, and billions per company per year in travel expenses, corporate write-offs, and other "perks".

You want a better profit margin? Cut out the raises, bonuses, and perks. That should generate multiple billions of dollars per year, per company, in newly found "revenue". And ironic how that can be accomplished without charging an average 35% monthly payment markup on each individual plan every year, isn't it?

And just for the record...Medicaid and Medicare are not even remotely similar to this new plan. Yes...some elderly people pay in to medicaid. However, not every person that recieves medicaid and medicare actually pays into it, by monthly fees OR taxes. Their are millions of destitute and illegals that do not contribute a solitary dime in ANY FORM to these programs, and still cost millions per year to cover. The new program will ONLY pay out to "members" that actually pay in, in the form of a monthly payment, just like private insurance does.

Also consider that the newly found ability for these 35million Americans to participate in annual checkups and preventative healthcare programs through office visits and routine physicals is likely to result in MUCH lower medical costs for each individual family in the long term.

Plus...if you had read the last 40 or so responses, you would have realized that private insurance is just as unsustainable as anything else...

Whether or not you agree that this bill was the right step at the right time, private insurance is doomed to fail. If giving people a choice makes it fail sooner...so be it. Like any other business model, it either changes to meet the needs of the people it relies upon for profit, or it fails.

 

[Austin M]

I miss understood what you said as well Austin. I'm sorry I called you a Democrat.

That's funny! You know what they say, first impressions last a life time. I guess I made a poor one with you? LOL

I assumed a while ago you had me pegged for someone I'm not, or I should say pegged for a belief I don't have. Labels will change a persons perception of someone else, that's for sure.

No biggie to me, sticks and stones may break my bones....lol

 

[danielle]

Chris I didn't say the government should earn a profit margin I think you missed something. What I said is if they begin to sell health care bonds like they do treasury bonds investors are SOL if they want their money back at maturity meaning I don't think they will make a profit so we agree....it's okay I'm shocked too,lol

I think you think I'm on the side of private insurance and agree with their business practices in whole, but I don't. I have said in every health care thread I agree we needed health care reform- just not this way. I am not convinced we are going to see all 35 million insured, and I am not convinced our quality of care, R&D, and accessibility won't decline. It costs big money to be sick, need tests, surgery, and round the clock care. MRI machines alone cost close to a million dollars not to mention the operational costs of hospitals to keep everything in working order. I don't want to wait months for testing or surgery, and I don't want the government interfering in my end of life decisions. I personally want to be drugged out of my gorde and left to die with no machines, but for those who don't big brother has no right to tell them when it's time

 

[wade]

That's funny! You know what they say, first impressions last a life time. I guess I made a poor one with you? LOL

I assumed a while ago you had me pegged for someone I'm not, or I should say pegged for a belief I don't have. Labels will change a persons perception of someone else, that's for sure.

No biggie to me, sticks and stones may break my bones....lol

I don't peg people, Austin. Well except for Chris.

 

[Austin M]

Government isn't SUPPOSED to make a profit. The healthcare legislation that was just passed is not designed as a means for the government to suddenly become it's own business entity, and make a profit off of the people that put money into the pool. It designed to hold a pool from which medical bills can be paid.

I don't like speaking for people, but I don't believe she was talking about the government making a profit. I think the point was the government doesn't have the money for this. I brought up bonds so I think she was talking about them. The government sells bonds when it doesn't have money for something. That means they borrow money and will owe it in the future with interest. The interest it's going to pay on the borrowed money is the "loss" being spoken of.

If your personal bills are more than your income and you pay your bills on a credit card, you will owe that money plus interest. The interest your paying could be going to something more productive, like food, if you just lived within your means in the first place.

I think that's the point, how much will this cost the government and where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

I think your right about the system failing either way. I think it will fail either way... government control or free market. My concern is if it fails on the government's watch the American public will be holding the debt plus interest, instead of a private insurance company.

 

[Austin M]

It designed to hold a pool from which medical bills can be paid.

Just FYI, that was the design of social security and medicare. The problem with the design is the money is taken from the pool by the government and replaced with bonds. Think about that for a minute.... The money is taken from the pool, spent on what ever and replaced with IOU's known as bonds.

Let me put it this way. It's like me, pulling out all my money, lets say $1000 from my savings account and replacing it with $1000 from my credit card's line of credit. If I were able to do that, how much money would be in my "pool", AKA savings account? Negative $1000 plus what ever my interest rate is, that's how much I would have in my account. I would be in the hole! And that's were the government is today, all their pools are filled up with IOU's known as bonds, not money.

The whole idea of private insurance is to pay out the interest on a pool of money. The government has shown time and time again they will not leave a puddle, let alone a pool of money to draw from.

 

[wstphal]

Also consider that the newly found ability for these 35million Americans to participate in annual checkups and preventative healthcare programs through office visits and routine physicals is likely to result in MUCH lower medical costs for each individual family in the long term.

Actually, according to the Dutch, prevention ends up with HIGHER costs down the road. The people who receive it are healthier, but they live a LOT longer as a result of being healthier, and many of them will live long enough to become either very frail, requiring assistance with daily life activities, or demented, requiring expensive custodial care. The good point of preventative care is that until this end point is reached, people are healthier, but in the end it costs more. References available upon request.

 

[wade]

Betsy, at what age do you recommend that people should start getting annual check ups? If they are not ill, or there are no ongoing problems.

 

[wstphal]

Wade, people of all ages should have blood pressure checked once a year. Women need specific things every year from about 18 onward. As far as a "complete physical" is concerned, I think totally healthy people can start doing that every 1-3 years in their 30s-40s depending on whether they have bad family history or not.

 

[wade]

Really, that is more than I would have guess. Thanks.

 

[KJUN]

Actually, according to the Dutch, prevention ends up with HIGHER costs down the road. The people who receive it are healthier, but they live a LOT longer as a result of being healthier, and many of them will live long enough to become either very frail, requiring assistance with daily life activities, or demented, requiring expensive custodial care. The good point of preventative care is that until this end point is reached, people are healthier, but in the end it costs more. References available upon request.

Want more proof that healthier people cost more in the long run? Look at the stats for smokers versus nonsmokers. In the short term, they cost more because of the additional health problems related to that disgusting activity. If nobody smoked, the average age would increase, and OLDER people, on average, cost more over their lifespan than the smokers did in their lifespan that averages 12-15 fewer years.

So, to all smokers, thank you. I appreciate your sacrifice to help keep the rest of our health care costs down!
KJ

 

[KJUN]

Lots of studies have looked at this - in Canada, our malpractice insurance is cheaper by orders of magnitude,

I would suspect that is true across the board even outside of insurance and just "malpractice" insurance. The US "lawsuit mentality" - where the judges are the biggest part of the problem IMO - really is one of our biggest problems. It THAT wasn't a runaway train, then the side effects wouldn't be hurting us so much.

Excuse me now....but I have to go buy coffee in my car and sue someone for a couple of million dollars because it is hot!

 

[wade]

It is not uncommon for people on the southern boarder states to go to Mexico to buy their prescription drugs. They are 50 to 60% cheaper in Mexico. My brother is a pharmaceutical representative and I asked him why the difference. He said it was in part to what the market can bear. The people in Mexico simply cannot pay our prices. But more than that is the fact that in Mexico they simple do not have the threat of law suits that we have.

 

[Nova_C]

Excuse me now....but I have to go buy coffee in my car and sue someone for a couple of million dollars because it is hot!

Not really the thread for this discussion, but that lawsuit had merit. If you'd like to talk about tort reform, we can start a new thread?

 

[tyflier]

Want more proof that healthier people cost more in the long run? Look at the stats for smokers versus nonsmokers. In the short term, they cost more because of the additional health problems related to that disgusting activity. If nobody smoked, the average age would increase, and OLDER people, on average, cost more over their lifespan than the smokers did in their lifespan that averages 12-15 fewer years.

So, to all smokers, thank you. I appreciate your sacrifice to help keep the rest of our health care costs down!
KJ

You're Welcome!!

See...I do my part. How's THAT for selfless sacrifice for the greater good!

 

[tyflier]

Not really the thread for this discussion, but that lawsuit had merit. If you'd like to talk about tort reform, we can start a new thread?

Merit? Come on...it's coffee. It is SUPPOSED to be hot. Temperature is relative, and what is too hot for one coffee drinker is just right for another. The nature of the drink dictates caution when taking a sip.

It's like those people that buy propane table-top grills, and use them inside, or worse, as heaters.

I think their should be a law against suing someone because you're an idiot. Just my humble opinion...

But you're right in that this isn't necessarily the right thread for that discussion...

 

[Lucille]

It is not uncommon for people on the southern boarder states to go to Mexico to buy their prescription drugs. They are 50 to 60% cheaper in Mexico. My brother is a pharmaceutical representative and I asked him why the difference. He said it was in part to what the market can bear. The people in Mexico simply cannot pay our prices. But more than that is the fact that in Mexico they simple do not have the threat of law suits that we have.

I knew families that did that, went across the border for their meds. Less now though, the immediate other side of the border is more dangerous than what it used to be.

 

[danielle]

My Chris I agree with you again- coffee is hot duh!!! And I do my part as a smoker daily so you won't be paying to wipe my butt or drool, feed me, bath me, or turn me every few hours so I don't get bed sores

 

[wade]

Danielle, I really don't want to got to my grave with that picture of you in my mind.