LGP Political Discussion Thread

[MWB]

The idea is fine... the "facts" are skewed.

What they are proposing cannot be funded by those numbers provided in any world I could realistically think of.

They are literally saying that it will cost the average insured person a fraction of what they pay right now. And large corporations will be paying less in taxes. That would automatically have it on the table, you'd think. The heavy hit ones will be small businesses tho.

Which things are inaccurate?

[bhaw]

The idea is fine... the "facts" are skewed.

What they are proposing cannot be funded by those numbers provided in any world I could realistically think of.

They are literally saying that it will cost the average insured person a fraction of what they pay right now. And large corporations will be paying less in taxes. That would automatically have it on the table, you'd think. The heavy hit ones will be small businesses tho.

Which things are inaccurate?

What I've been saying... There is no way what they are proposing can be funded by those numbers. Do I have a case study to disprove it? No... but use common sense here. How can less fund more?

[MWB]

This is where debate gets frustrating.... nowhere in what I posted did it say that an employees wages would go up because of this.

The way they wrote it, they are getting at it. Clearly to make it sound better. They were just smart and didn't specifically state it so that they can say "We never said that." Read the last few lines again... it all but says that. Saying benefits will be pulled off the bargaining table for employment implies that now employers will have to put their money where their mouth is.

Again, it doesn't directly say it, but that's what they are trying to get at so people say "Wow! Great idea!"

If a plan like this were to miraculously go through, health care would be pulled off the table. Most businesses would probably just say that they pay a tax instead of a direct payment though.

[MWB]

The idea is fine... the "facts" are skewed.

What they are proposing cannot be funded by those numbers provided in any world I could realistically think of.

They are literally saying that it will cost the average insured person a fraction of what they pay right now. And large corporations will be paying less in taxes. That would automatically have it on the table, you'd think. The heavy hit ones will be small businesses tho.

Which things are inaccurate?

What I've been saying... There is no way what they are proposing can be funded by those numbers. Do I have a case study to disprove it? No... but use common sense here. How can less fund more?

By the elimination of inefficiencies in the current health insurance system. That is how they explain it anyway:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ron`]

This is where I get really angry. People say why should we pay for someone that is retired's social security or medicare. When in reality they were programs sold by the federal government and financed by the people of that age via taxes etc all along. Yet when it comes time for the federal government to pay up, amazingly the plan was flawed, mismanaged, flat out robbed etc. whatever you want to call it and now it's bankrupt.

Yet these same people are willing to blindly trust the government to take over health care.... Marone`, take care of yourself because if you are counting on them you are doomed.

[bhaw]

This is where debate gets frustrating.... nowhere in what I posted did it say that an employees wages would go up because of this.

The way they wrote it, they are getting at it. Clearly to make it sound better. They were just smart and didn't specifically state it so that they can say "We never said that." Read the last few lines again... it all but says that. Saying benefits will be pulled off the bargaining table for employment implies that now employers will have to put their money where their mouth is.

Again, it doesn't directly say it, but that's what they are trying to get at so people say "Wow! Great idea!"

If a plan like this were to miraculously go through, health care would be pulled off the table. Most businesses would probably just say that they pay a tax instead of a direct payment though.

Of course it'd be off the table. That part isn't inaccurate... the way it was written, I have a problem with. It just makes an uninformed reader think that "Hey! They'll bump my salary since they don't have to pay for my insurance AND their taxes are going down!"

I'm not opposed to single player... I'm opposed to the government that would be installing it. It would never be done right... no confidence in it.

And the problem is that it will cost the average person more because they need to get money from somewhere. And the corporations run Congress, so who are they more likely to tax?

[MWB]

This is where I get really angry. People say why should we pay for someone that is retired's social security or medicare. When in reality they were programs sold by the federal government and financed by the people of that age via taxes etc all along. Yet when it comes time for the federal government to pay up, amazingly the plan was flawed, mismanaged, flat out robbed etc. whatever you want to call it and now it's bankrupt.

Yet these same people are willing to blindly trust the government to take over health care.... Marone`, take care of yourself because if you are counting on them you are doomed.

What "people" are you talking about?

[bhaw]

By the elimination of inefficiencies in the current health insurance system. That is how they explain it anyway:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, let's use some common sense...

Is the insurance system inefficient? Yes.

Is it so efficient that I would only have to pay roughly 4% of what I'm paying now to get MORE coverage? Is the fact that there is an insurance company there really causing a waste of 96%+ of the money?

Even if vastly inefficient, wasting 96% (actually more since the coverage would supposedly be better) is probably a stretch.

[Ron`]

Not you, I am still reading todays posts....

[MWB]

I can certainly understand people not wanting to trust the government to run something.

bhaw, not sure if you saw my earlier question..... what types of things aren't covered under your insurance? What things do Canadians need supplemental insurance for?

[MWB]

By the elimination of inefficiencies in the current health insurance system. That is how they explain it anyway:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, let's use some common sense...

Is the insurance system inefficient? Yes.

Is it so efficient that I would only have to pay roughly 4% of what I'm paying now to get MORE coverage? Is the fact that there is an insurance company there really causing a waste of 96%+ of the money?

Even if vastly inefficient, wasting 96% (actually more since the coverage would supposedly be better) is probably a stretch.

I'm not sure where you're getting the 96% from?

[bhaw]

I can certainly understand people not wanting to trust the government to run something.

bhaw, not sure if you saw my earlier question..... what types of things aren't covered under your insurance? What things do Canadians need supplemental insurance for?

I can't give a fully accurate answer because we haven't run into it.

Vision and dental aren't covered for sure.

Most companies provide a prescription program for medicine. I don't know what it would cost for a prescription uncovered, but with my wife's plan, it cost us 69 cents for her last bottle of pills

I know that with her pregnancy, the supplemental insurance helps cover the hospital stay.

That's all I can say for a fact. I haven't taken an in depth look at her health plan booklet.

[bhaw]

By the elimination of inefficiencies in the current health insurance system. That is how they explain it anyway:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, let's use some common sense...

Is the insurance system inefficient? Yes.

Is it so efficient that I would only have to pay roughly 4% of what I'm paying now to get MORE coverage? Is the fact that there is an insurance company there really causing a waste of 96%+ of the money?

Even if vastly inefficient, wasting 96% (actually more since the coverage would supposedly be better) is probably a stretch.

I'm not sure where you're getting the 96% from?

Ignore that part because my math skills are totally off from being tired. Sorry.

[MWB]

I can certainly understand people not wanting to trust the government to run something.

bhaw, not sure if you saw my earlier question..... what types of things aren't covered under your insurance? What things do Canadians need supplemental insurance for?

I can't give a fully accurate answer because we haven't run into it.

Vision and dental aren't covered for sure.

Most companies provide a prescription program for medicine. I don't know what it would cost for a prescription uncovered, but with my wife's plan, it cost us 69 cents for her last bottle of pills

I know that with her pregnancy, the supplemental insurance helps cover the hospital stay.

That's all I can say for a fact. I haven't taken an in depth look at her health plan booklet.

Thanks.
Prescriptions being covered in any single payer system here would be very problematic I assume.

[Ron`]

I compare the single payer system to much what my company has run for years as a self insured health care plan. They are the government in this case. They pay the medical bills and have an external health care organization administrate it. For about 20 years they made money this way, the majority of the work force was young and healthy. They put more in than the claims and took the profits, much like the federal government robbed social security.

But as cost rose and the work force aged there was eventually a loss due to claims. That loss was then passed on to the employees each year. HR plans were designed to limit new hires and layoff the aged where possible to save costs. Someone figured out that if you get rid of people before they can retire, before they can claim age descrimination and before they start having health issues it's just a smart business decision.

Now extrapolait that thought process forward to a federally run health care system in this country..... Compare how the federal government did the same things with social security by raiding the excess, changing the age limits for claims etc .... We all should be leery.....

[DelPen]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/ ... worse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind of funny article when you see that about half way through his mother in law was on Medicare, a government program, kind of defeating any point he had about the evils of the American health system.

[pittsoccer33]

medicare might be great for helping seniors pay for treatments, but it is running out of money plain and simple. now we are going to cut the governments costs by insuring millions and millions more? thats why congresspeople are getting laughed at.

[Geezer]

medicare might be great for helping seniors pay for treatments, but it is running out of money plain and simple. now we are going to cut the governments costs by insuring millions and millions more? thats why congresspeople are getting laughed at.

The backdoor way the government is going to cut medicare costs is by further cutting reimbursement to procedures to hospitals for various procedures. The way it works is that mdeicare covers let's say $4oo of a $500 cost. The hospitals than overcharge private insured plans $600 for the same $500 costed procedure. Employer and private insured plans now subsidize government medicare and medicare plans.
By further reducing medicare the reimbursement % , hospitals and doctors won't recommend or offer some procedures to seniors. Obama's technically right; the government isn't going to cut or ration care. They're planning on forcing hospitals and doctors to do the rationing and cutting. The more that people catch on to this the more PO'd the gray panthers get. They're starting to turn on AARP which is concerned with their own money-making health insurance scheme. The pharmacuticals already cut a deal with Obama's team.
Basically people who have employer coverage will get hosed when their employers drop health insurance due to various gov't regs designed to force people on to the "public option". Those who have insurance will get dragged down to the level of the government plan. It is socialistic from the approach that the "haves give up something for the have nots".

[HomerPenguin]

This is where I get really angry. People say why should we pay for someone that is retired's social security or medicare. When in reality they were programs sold by the federal government and financed by the people of that age via taxes etc all along.

From the inception of OASDI and Medicare the idea has been that current workers pay for current retirees. You didn't pre-pay for your own retirement benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Provisions_of_the_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Financial_viability

[HomerPenguin]

To reduce costs significantly... stop letting every a hole sue a doctor for any little thing that happens while they are trying to help you. A good chunk of the mark up is due to the ridiculous malpractice insurance premiums. That is also why there are fewer and fewer private practices. The malpractice insurance is unaffordable to the small practices, so doctors go to the large clinics and hospitals that can afford it, which are ultimately ruled by a corporation and board of governors that know nothing at all about medicine.

Ah, tort reform. Another gift to big business.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/1396 ... 2C_part_i/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since 1986 more than half of the 50 states have enacted some kind of tort reform. For example, 34 states have legal limits on punitive damages, and 23 states have capped “non-economic” damages. By now we should be able to measure the real impact of tort reform.

We find in several states that tort reform has significantly reduced rates of medical malpractice insurance paid by physicians. This in turn has helped some states attract more physicians, especially physicians in high-risk practices, such as surgery.

However, we also find, in state after state, that the passage of tort reform laws does nothing to reduce overall health care costs. Health care costs and patient insurance premiums continue to increase at the same rate as before, if not faster. And the promised cost reductions from less “defensive medicine” never materialize.

[HomerPenguin]

That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs

Source?

[Guinness]

From the inception of OASDI and Medicare the idea has been that current workers pay for current retirees. You didn't pre-pay for your own retirement benefits.

Great system, that. What happens when the retirees outnumber the current work force? Or when the spending outpaces "revenues" (lol)?

[Guinness]

Only government can solve our problems...

Evil Private sector.

[Guinness]

Here's a great article on the two-party see-saw that's been such a boon to our country. :snark:

[HomerPenguin]

Only government can solve our problems...

Evil Private sector.

I read that piece. Some interesting ideas, but his company's primary clientele is pretty cheesed off at him right now.

One thing I still don't get:

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

When did libertarians become anti-state sovereignty?