Yay Government health care:(

[wstphal]

It also means that they do not need to average a 30% monthly rate increase every year, ...

At the current rate of increase of health care costs, taxes.gov will EITHER have to choose to increase the fees charged to people in the plan, ~or~ increase overall taxes to cover the cost, ~or~ do deficit spending, ~or~ cut benefits. All at pretty close to the same rate as private.enterprise is increasing the premiums. That's my whole point. Taxes.gov doesn't need to make profit, but unless we want more deficits, they do have to break even, and the annual increase in the cost of actual health care is quite frightening, and represents most of that 30% increase private.enterprise hits us with every year.

We will gain some savings from the no-need-for-profit thing with taxes.gov. We will gain some help by adding healthy people to the risk pool (because their premium $ will help cover the cost of sick people), but none of this touches the issue of how much we spend on actual:

physician care
nursing care
hospital care
medications
imaging studies
laboratory tests

And that's what I am passionate about hammering away at, is that neither private.enterprise nor taxes.gov have put any real thought into real costs, and fussing about whether the $ is taken out of our pockets by taxes.gov or private.enterprise is a side-show compared to the cost issues.

 

[tyflier]

At the current rate of increase of health care costs, taxes.gov will EITHER have to choose to increase the fees charged to people in the plan, ~or~ increase overall taxes to cover the cost, ~or~ do deficit spending, ~or~ cut benefits. All at pretty close to the same rate as private.enterprise is increasing the premiums. That's my whole point. Taxes.gov doesn't need to make profit, but unless we want more deficits, they do have to break even, and the annual increase in the cost of actual health care is quite frightening, and represents most of that 30% increase private.enterprise hits us with every year.

We will gain some savings from the no-need-for-profit thing with taxes.gov. We will gain some help by adding healthy people to the risk pool (because their premium $ will help cover the cost of sick people), but none of this touches the issue of how much we spend on actual:

physician care
nursing care
hospital care
medications
imaging studies
laboratory tests

And that's what I am passionate about hammering away at, is that neither private.enterprise nor taxes.gov have put any real thought into real costs, and fussing about whether the $ is taken out of our pockets by taxes.gov or private.enterprise is a side-show compared to the cost issues.

Yes, I realize that. My response was more along the lines of showing Mike that "not making a profit" and "recording a loss" are not necessarily synonomous, rather than making a reasonable and rational assessment and cost analysis...

I love your recent posts, BTW. Excellent points, and something I think everyone would do well to strongly consider regardless of their personal opinion of the HCR bill or me...

 

[mike17l]

Yes, I realize that. My response was more along the lines of showing Mike that "not making a profit" and "recording a loss" are not necessarily synonomous, rather than making a reasonable and rational assessment and cost analysis...

I love your recent posts, BTW. Excellent points, and something I think everyone would do well to strongly consider regardless of their personal opinion of the HCR bill or me...

Chris, do you honestly trust the .gov to break even, and not take a loss?

 

[tyflier]

Chris, do you honestly trust the .gov to break even, and not take a loss?

That's not really the point, is it?

The truth of the matter is that you and I are both free to assume anything we want about how the government will handle this. You are welcome to assume that they will mess it all up, and put this country "over the edge", as it were. I'm not going to try and change your mind.

My personal feeling is really quite simple...

The US government is FAR from perfect. They make HUGE mistakes, especially in the areas of budget and finance. Frankly, the government is not the sharpest tool in the shed. On that much, I am quite certain that we both can agree.

Here is where we differ(please forgive the analogy)...

We have 2 tools at our disposal for dealing with the tree of health care. One tool is rather dull, and not always reliable(the government). We have used this tool in the past, and it has been slow at getting the job done, and usually at a higher cost than predicted or expected, but the job usually gets done, at least semi-satisfactorily.

The other tool is insurance corporations. This tool is VERY sharp. It's blade is shard, it's tip is sharp...problem is that the handle is very sharp, as well. Using this tool, for the past (how ever many) years, has created a HUGE wound in the hand of the American People. It gets the job done more quickly, and with better results because of a smarter money management theory. But in accomplishing the task, it also deeply cuts and wounds the people that wield it.

In other words...the government might be slower and a bit dull, but it will usually get the job done. The corporations are sharper and faster, but this usually happens at a great cost to the individual.

All assumptions aside...both our options are a bunch of tools.

You see what I did there? I don't care who you are, that there is funny...

 

[wade]

I get the impression that many people think medical care is expensive because the insurance companies are ripping us off and the doctors are ripping us off and everyone is getting more than their share except me. Betsey has done a wonderful job of pointing out that that is not necessarily the case. When insurance companies raise the rates 30% it does not mean they are adding 30% to the bottom line as some have implied.

Again, whether the gov does it or private companies do it you still have to cover you costs. And costs are what they are.

So the real issue I believe for many of us is do you trust the gov to handle this without burying us in bureaucracy? Will the gov handle this better than they have SS, Medicare, or Medicaid.

When a person comes to me to interview for a job I ask them what have you done in that past? What is your track record? What can you show me that would make me think you will do the job for me? I think those are pretty pertinent questions. Questions that I have not heard a good answer for from the government. I don’t think that is dooms day preaching, I think that is being realistic and practical.

If a job applicant told me that they had been involved is several positions that were similar to mine and they failed at all of them, I probably would not hire them.

 

[wstphal]

We have 2 tools at our disposal for dealing with the tree of health care. One tool is rather dull, and not always reliable(the government). We have used this tool in the past, and it has been slow at getting the job done, and usually at a higher cost than predicted or expected, but the job usually gets done, at least semi-satisfactorily.

The other tool is insurance corporations. This tool is VERY sharp. It's blade is shard, it's tip is sharp...problem is that the handle is very sharp, as well. Using this tool, for the past (how ever many) years, has created a HUGE wound in the hand of the American People. It gets the job done more quickly, and with better results because of a smarter money management theory. But in accomplishing the task, it also deeply cuts and wounds the people that wield it.

In other words...the government might be slower and a bit dull, but it will usually get the job done. The corporations are sharper and faster, but this usually happens at a great cost to the individual.

Great analogy, but we need to get a new toolkit with more tools in it.

Edit: maybe a socket wrench?

 

[tsst]

Someone figured out how they will pay the for the rising costs. See last panel! :grin01:

 

[kathylove]

If it is true that the insurance companies make no more than 4%...

(I don't know if it is true, but I haven't heard any other figures), then even if we put them out of business, we could only save their 4%, MINUS the cost of the government bureaucracy that would take their place. But we are talking about keeping the insurance companies, reducing their 4%, AND ADDING gov't layers. I don't see how that math adds up to anything helpful, unless somebody knows that the 4% number is completely wrong.

Am I missing something here?

 

[wade]

I just sent an email to my banker asking him to find out what the bottom line is for a typical mega insurance company. I'll find out.

 

[mike17l]

(I don't know if it is true, but I haven't heard any other figures), then even if we put them out of business, we could only save their 4%, MINUS the cost of the government bureaucracy that would take their place. But we are talking about keeping the insurance companies, reducing their 4%, AND ADDING gov't layers. I don't see how that math adds up to anything helpful, unless somebody knows that the 4% number is completely wrong.

Am I missing something here?

Kathy, you are missing faith in the savior, er I mean president and his lackeys, er congress. You must have faith in them, they have helped us so much so far; and have proven themselves worthy to properly spend and utilize and save our tax money.

 

[kathylove]

There was a HUGE article about health care in our local Sunday paper...

a couple of weeks ago. They interviewed the head of our local group of hospitals (Lee Memorial system) for part of it. He said that in our area (SW Florida), Medicare and Medicaid accounts for something like 65% of the funds they receive. But he said that they actually lose money on every one of those patients. So they have to hike up the rates for insured and private pay patients to make up the difference. And that is PART of the reason that insurance is so expensive, according to what I remember of what he said.

I will see if their is an online link to the article, as I may not have remembered all details perfectly.

Just something to think about.

 

[wade]

See I told you. Now that Chris and I are best friends there hasn't been a post here for 3 hours. It's like a train wreck. Nobody cares unless there is blood.

 

[KJUN]

So the real issue I believe for many of us is do you trust the gov to handle this without burying us in bureaucracy? Will the gov handle this better than they have SS, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Hmmm, I just read in a USA Today Snapshot that US Census Bureau data says the .gov will spend $110.61 PER HOUSEHOLD to count. This census will cost them $110 PER HOUSEHOLD to count the number of people living there.

Over $100 "per house" to just find out how many people are there.

Ha! How could they NOT be trusted with something as important as reducing the cost of health care while not decreasing the quality????

 

[tyflier]

I get the impression that many people think medical care is expensive because the insurance companies are ripping us off and the doctors are ripping us off and everyone is getting more than their share except me. Betsey has done a wonderful job of pointing out that that is not necessarily the case. When insurance companies raise the rates 30% it does not mean they are adding 30% to the bottom line as some have implied.

Again, whether the gov does it or private companies do it you still have to cover you costs. And costs are what they are.

So the real issue I believe for many of us is do you trust the gov to handle this without burying us in bureaucracy? Will the gov handle this better than they have SS, Medicare, or Medicaid.

When a person comes to me to interview for a job I ask them what have you done in that past? What is your track record? What can you show me that would make me think you will do the job for me? I think those are pretty pertinent questions. Questions that I have not heard a good answer for from the government. I don’t think that is dooms day preaching, I think that is being realistic and practical.

If a job applicant told me that they had been involved is several positions that were similar to mine and they failed at all of them, I probably would not hire them.

There you go making me agree with you again, Wade. Now you're just breaking the rules.

I think the biggest difference between you and I on this issue() is where we find the faults.

I agree that the government has a spotty track record. I also see the insurance companies with a spotty track record. My take on that is this...

I don't have much choice over the government. Sure I can vote...but how good is that when I am voting against someone instead of for someone else? I can write my reps and senators, and I can voice my opinion. But in reality, I don't have much personal choice over what and how the government decides to do things. My only real option is to be frustrated about it. That's the nature of our electoral process and our government. C'est la vie.

Insurance companies do "rob" people. They do it in many forms, and under many guises. Just as the government has a spotty track record of maintaining programs without going in to debt, insurance companies have a spotty track record of performing the services you have paid for, and operating business on a morally honest level. (disclaimer--I recognize the difference between morally honest and ethically honest, and the legality of the two. this is the reason for the distinction.)

So again, I feel that we are left with choosing the lesser of two evils. In this situation, we have been trying the insurance companies for many years. Things keep getting worse instead of better.

We haven't tried THIS sort of ".gov" health insurance program yet. Medicaid/Medicare are vastly different than the programs that just passed. The programs that just passed are more in line with how insurance companies operate, though at a lower cost to the consumer.

I don't know that the government plan will be better. But as I have been saying, I just don't see how it can be much worse. It's just another case of choosing the lesser of two evils, in my opinion. Neither option is ideal. So I am willing to try something we've never done before in an effort to make things better.

Will it work? Only time will tell...

 

[wade]

OK I got some info from my banker. He sent me a link to this article. He said he is still working on it and will get me more information tomorrow.

This article is written by Mark J. Perry Ph. D. who is a professor of economics at University of Michigan. Has lots of fancy credentials. I don’t know what his politics are. The article was written in August of 2009. Because of the formatting of the article you need to go to it and read it yourself. There is a big table in the beginning of the article that you need to click on to enlarge it so you can read it. Here is the link.

In a nut shell, Hospitals rank #77 with a profit of 3.6%. Health Care Plans rank #86 with a profit of 3.3% Companies like Aerospace Technology, Auto Parts, Restaurants, and many others all rank way above Health Care Plans. Beverages and Brewers are at the top with a 25.9% profit.

Based on this article I think I’m comfortable saying that insurance companies and hospitals are not making insane profits at our expense. Private companies have every motive in the world to be as efficient and cost effective as they can be. Government entities on the other hand do not have that incentive. But ignoring that and excepting the premise that the government for the first time in history are going to manage this program better than any insurance company ever dreamed of the very most they can hope to save is 3.3%. Everything beyond that is hard cost. Then factor in that they are going to insure people who insurance companies will not, and take on the high risk policies that insurance companies shy away from and do it all for less. That is really hard to swallow, no matter how much you would like it to be true.

 

[Pruddock]

OK I got some info from my banker. He sent me a link to this article. He said he is still working on it and will get me more information tomorrow.

This article is written by Mark J. Perry Ph. D. who is a professor of economics at University of Michigan. Has lots of fancy credentials. I don’t know what his politics are. The article was written in August of 2009. Because of the formatting of the article you need to go to it and read it yourself. There is a big table in the beginning of the article that you need to click on to enlarge it so you can read it. Here is the link.

In a nut shell, Hospitals rank #77 with a profit of 3.6%. Health Care Plans rank #86 with a profit of 3.3% Companies like Aerospace Technology, Auto Parts, Restaurants, and many others all rank way above Health Care Plans. Beverages and Brewers are at the top with a 25.9% profit.

Based on this article I think I’m comfortable saying that insurance companies and hospitals are not making insane profits at our expense. Private companies have every motive in the world to be as efficient and cost effective as they can be. Government entities on the other hand do not have that incentive. But ignoring that and excepting the premise that the government for the first time in history are going to manage this program better than any insurance company ever dreamed of the very most they can hope to save is 3.3%. Everything beyond that is hard cost. Then factor in that they are going to insure people who insurance companies will not, and take on the high risk policies that insurance companies shy away from and do it all for less. That is really hard to swallow, no matter how much you would like it to be true.

Could have told you that just from my short stint in the bio field :noevil:

 

[danielle]

Medicaid and Medicare act exactly like insurance companies just at a lower cost to the consumer which means the provider takes a pay cut on every Medicare/Medicaid recipient they see- there's no difference except Medicaid and Medicare reject many more services than most big insurance companies do, and as the recipients care needs heighten they make the recipient pay more and more out of pocket or reject the care. Both of these programs are still currently going broke despite lower cost, and see millions fewer patients than our new health plan will.

Another issue that bothers me is people complain about this whopping 4% profit the big boys make, but don't realize insurance companies have a HUGE hand in research and development funding billions of dollars of research a year. Our government isn't talking about spending the way private insurers do and has plans to cover even more people so not only is there a real concern about how they will fund our care, but what will happen to medical advances. Pharmaceutical companies, labs, and other establishments rely on this money with government grants making up very little of their research income and I fear we're going to see less innovation and a lower standard of care.

Reform is needed, but I still think our government could have mandated certain changes in the private sector without taking over

 

[KJUN]

Our government isn't talking about spending the way private insurers do and has plans to cover even more people so not only is there a real concern about how they will fund our care, but what will happen to medical advances.

Actually, the .gov DOES fund a lot of research. I do have to admit that, HOWEVER, what they fund isn't often less directed and productive. In business, no results means no future monies. The .gov doesn't penalize for failure....as long as you do the paperwork correctly. LOL.

So, YES the .gov does fund a lot of research, but it can NOT do it alone. Advances will come to a standstill compared to what we HAVE seen in our lifetimes.

Reform is needed, but I still think our government could have mandated certain changes in the private sector without taking over

...but then we couldn't become the USSA as quickly!

 

[danielle]

LOL KJUN, yes government gives out millions in research grants a year, but the bulk of pharmaceutical companies and labs still rely on their own monies for research in whole. With government giving millions health care we can say goodbye to those grants and hello to medical standstills

My issue isn't about giving people anything or how much they do/don't deserve it though- it's about basic math. If we can't fund Medicare and Medicaid how do we fund a bigger plan? I worry about the amount of resources we are going to expend and how many other resources will be lost. I worry about the quality of care we will receive and rationing, wait times, and shortages of medical personnel.

 

[wade]

Very good points Danielle. I had not even considered the research insurance companies do. Who do you think has done all the research and testing that has made cars so much safer than they used to be.

Rich has chosen to ignore our requests for rep points. I can't rep you Danielle but you deserve it.