It's easy for conservatives to understand... but only if they comprehend both sides of the issue!
Yes, the government will save money by providing universal health care. How it works is easy to understand — at least for those who try to comprehend both sides of the story. It all starts with something akin to a quote from an old motor oil commercial: “You can pay me now, or pay me later." It really isn’t that much different from investing a little now to avoid paying (or at least not receiving) a lot more later.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments126 - roger nowosielski
I like your comment, Cannon, especially when it concerns the timing. Fix the economy first. And reforming civil service should be first priority. No one has any real conception as to the extent of waste of money and resources. I'd be willing to bet that if someone was of the mind to a real, honest-to-goodness audit, they could cut the expenses by 40 percent without compromising the scope or the efficiency.
It is wasted money going down the sinkhole.
127 - Clavos
...before I was born in 1973?
Damn, Cannon, you just made me spew coffee all over my screen.
My wife and I were married in '71, kid.
128 - Clavos
Oops! Meant to also say great comment, Cannon.
129 - Clavos
bliffle #122:
You almost had me convinced, despite all the evidence to the contrary, including the fact that your government, by its own admission can't interdict more than 10% of the drugs entering your country, that maybe, just maybe, it really does have a handle on Medicare fraud.
So you can imagine my astonishment and chagrin this morning, when I opened my copy of the Miami Herald, only to find this enormous, above-the-fold front page headline:
Crackdown on Medicare fraud a priority for Obama administration
Perusing the article, I find some statements from highly placed government bumblers -- er, officials, such as this one from Kathleen Sebelius, your Health and Human Services Secretary:
''The Obama administration is committed to turning up the heat on Medicare fraud and employing all the weapons in the federal government's arsenal to target those who are defrauding the American taxpayer,'' HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a news conference at the Justice Department with Attorney General Eric Holder.
''But our joint efforts don't just stop at the jailhouse door,'' she said. ``Every dollar we can save by stopping fraud can be used to strengthen the long-term fiscal health of Medicare, bring down costs and deliver better service to Medicare beneficiaries.''
And the article goes on:
The government's job will be anything but easy.
During the past five years, thousands of Medicare fraud offenders have shown that they can outsmart the vulnerable healthcare system for the elderly and disabled. Their weapons: cash kickbacks to Medicare patients, manipulation of medical records to justify bogus charges, and use of different billing codes to get around Medicare's technology to block false claims. (emphasis, as always, added)
And:
Multiple indictments, returned by a federal grand jury in Michigan, spotlighted HIV infusion and physical therapy that have been widespread in Miami and were transported to Detroit, the latest Medicare fraud hot spot.
The severity of the problem in Detroit prompted Holder, Sebelius and FBI Director Robert Mueller to hold the news conference Wednesday at the Justice Department.
And finally, we have this, from your ever affable (if inept) Attorney General, Eric Holder:
''We will strike back [future tense, bliff] against those whose fraudulent schemes not only undermine a program upon which 45 million aged and disabled Americans depend, but which also contribute directly to rising healthcare costs that all Americans must bear,'' Holder said.
So, apparently, you're wrong bliff. Your much-maligned and perennially inept government does not yet have things even close to under control.
130 - roger nowosielski
"your ever affable (if inept) Attorney General, Eric Holder"
Why inept? Isn't it a rather early call?
131 - Bliffle
Cannonshop does a lot of wild speculating without any basis in #125:
...
Federalcrats aren't accountable. They're IMMUNE, and that's not a good thing.
Huh? Where is that written. In fact, federal bureaucrats are subject to the same las as anyone else, like fraud, thievery, etc. And some go to jail every day for crimes.
The fraud case Bliffle posted is only the most obvious, and easily prosecuted scam out there-there's plenty that go right on through without being noted,...
How do YOU know? What are your sources? Your own Paranoia?
132 - Bliffle
Clavos blows hot air again in #129:
This time he's recycling political hot air from democrat politicians, of all things!
No numbers, no facts, just political hot air.
Clavos has fallen victim to the Permanent Political Campaign.
133 - Bliffle
And where does this come from:
You almost had me convinced, despite all the evidence to the contrary,...
What evidence?
... including the fact that your government, by its own admission can't interdict more than 10% of the drugs entering your country,...
Whose government? What does the drug war have to do with medicare?
134 - Clavos
Yer whistlin' past the graveyard again, bliffle.
Even the govt officials are admitting Medicrap fraud is out of control.
135 - roger nowosielski
Speculations aside, bliffle, there are some cogent ideas expressed by Cannon concerning the importance of timing and fixing the economy first, ideas to which you're apparently as blind as a bat.
Not everything should be decided on the basis of "mere facts," be they numbers or figures. That's the bean-counter's way. Ideas count.
You seem to be undergoing a phase of late - this obsession you seem to have to try to reduce everything to factual arguments, forgetting all the while that numbers and statistics can be used to support both sides of the argument.
And in light of this recent conversion of yours from a thinker to a bean counter, we shall be more than justified to discount from now on all your observations as regards such sundry matters as your interpretation of history, America's past, or any other general subject on which (if I remember correctly) you felt quite free to treat us to your esteemed opinions.
136 - Bliffle
Clavos: "Even the govt officials are admitting Medicrap fraud is out of control."
No, politicians are plumping for more money.
You know, just like the hysteria Bush generated by saying Saddam Hussein was going to bomb us with his WMD.
137 - Bliffle
"How Does Universal Health Care Save Money? Easy..."
Here's how:
Given that about 18% of the GDP, about $2.2triliion,
and that insures about 200million people,
and there are about 50 million uninsured,
and private insurance overhead is about 40%,
and medicare overhead is about 3%,
then:
converting everyone to medicare reduces total cost for 200 million to:
$2.2T * (1 - 0.40 + 0.03) = $1.5T
and adding the 50million uninsured adds 25%:
Total cost = 1.5T * (1.25) = $1.9T
a clear savings of $300billion per year.
Any high school graduate who was actually awake in math class should be able to figure this out.
138 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos #123 - I did laugh out loud at that one. Good riposte....
139 - roger nowosielski
Glenn,
I think you should re-read Cannon's #125 which our bean counter has so summarily dismissed. Apart from the dollars and cents argument which you folks are so enamored of/with (take your pick, Clavos, which preposition fits better?) - and I'm sorry, I can't get excited about the accounting aspect(s), so I shall leave these matters for you to decide - Cannon does make some valid points as regards the importance of timing and fixing the economy.
In a typical dismissive fashion, so characteristic lately of once "Bliffle the thinker," the aforementioned individual pays it no heed. But Cannon's points still stand and at the very least deserve to be answered.
Now, I don't expect Bliffle to be able to do that, because apparently he's no longer capable to process ideas. But you should re-read Cannon's remark and at least try to respond.
In fact, I'd like to hear your response.
140 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop -
What, you don't think there's federal bureaucrats in the police force, the firefighters, the military? Are you KIDDING?
And if you think that doctors don't face danger, why don't you go talk to one about what they and nurses face with MRSA, C-DIFF, AIDS, and a plethora of other mircrobes that will kill you and feast on your bones?
Why don't you read about how many doctors and nurses (and medical researchers) died doing their duty in the 1918 influenza? Check what they go through every day in inner-city emergency rooms!
I could write a book on all the errors in your post, all the prejudices against government that you've inherited from Reagan's greatest blunder, and PARTICULARLY about your erroneous paradigm about government corruption.
YES, there is government corruption, as with ANY other human organization bar none. BUT what you are NOT UNDERSTANDING is that there is FAR MORE corruption in the private health insurance industry!
ALL OTHER MODERN DEMOCRACIES ON THE PLANET have government-run health care of some form or another for their ENTIRE populations, and NONE OF THEM pay much more than half PER CAPITA than what we ALREADY do...AND most of them comprise the TOP TWENTY-SEVEN on the list of nations by life-expectancy!
ALL your bitter bombast cannot negate those facts!
The experience of ALL the free world outside America's borders should tell you that you pay FAR LESS TAXES if you have universal health care!
If the rest of the world's democracies can do it, then why can't we?
If most of the rest of the world's democracies can provide BETTER care overall for their populations for FAR LESS TAXES, then WHY can't we?
I'll tell you why - it's the old saying, "Can't never could". As long as the right wing (financed by those who would lose money with UHC) keeps saying, "we can't, we can't, we can't", then you'll be RIGHT - we CAN'T.
BUT if you'd pull your head away from Faux News and realize that those federal bureaucrats you hate so much are JUST LIKE YOU, that those who can't afford health insurance are JUST LIKE YOU, that we liberals are JUST LIKE YOU, then maybe, just maybe we might get somewhere.
Twenty-seven nations have proven that universal health care is not only better, but costs FAR LESS TAXES. It's PROVEN, C-shop. It's a FACT.
If they can do it, so can we.
Let me introduce you to the obvious corollary to "can't never could" - it's "can, CAN"...and as much as you want to scream otherwise, "Yes, we CAN!"
141 - roger nowosielski
Well, let me provide at least one example of which Medicare is being bilked - in a matter of regular checkups.
I have one every 3 months, and it consists of nothing but taking the blood pressure (which I can take at home and properly monitor it without the doctor's checkup)and a stethoscope to check the lungs.
It's a five minute affair for which Medicare is charged God knows what. And the MD makes it a point to process as many as 200 perhaps a day. So however little the MD gets from the government for each such appointment and check up, he still ends up with raking in the money.
This is just one example of how the present system does NOT work.
142 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
That's a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Keep your eye on the big picture - the top twenty-seven nations on the life-expectancy list ALL have UHC of one form or another. ALL of them pay less than sixty percent per capita for UHC than we ALREADY do.
We can, Roger - there will always, always be corruption. If there's one instance of corruption in a hundred people, than that means there's three million cases of corruption in three hundred million people.
Don't ignore the bad that the right wing wants you to see...but remember that in the big picture, twenty-seven nations have proven that UHC provides better overall care for FAR less taxes.
Big picture, Roger - it's sometimes hard to see when the trees are in the way.
143 - roger nowosielski
OK, Glenn. I know it's anecdotal (though true). And BTW, I didn't mean to use the example as any kind of counter-argument.
Just a slice of life, if you like, as to the kinds of things people do when they can get away with it.
144 - Clavos
It seems that Glenn's one point with any meat to it is the mantra of 27 nations.
But the wrong conclusion is being drawn from the data, it's not their UHC which results in their greater life expectancies, it's their healthier lifestyles, especially as regards nutrition.
Though you may not think lifestyles have anything to do with the life expectancy of a cohort, they do, and here in the USA we have one of the worst in terms of nutrition. We are, after all, the fast food nation par excellence. Our obesity is a major factor affecting life expectancy, which is why the food police are already maneuvering to either tax the shit out of fast food or eliminate it altogether, as the systematic building of the new nanny state by democrats and independent liberals proceeds apace.
145 - Dave Nalle
Keep your eye on the big picture - the top twenty-seven nations on the life-expectancy list ALL have UHC of one form or another. ALL of them pay less than sixty percent per capita for UHC than we ALREADY do.
Glenn, the fundamental fallacy in this oft-repeated canard is that because UHC is so widespread, far more than 27 countries which ALSO have UHC have LOWER life expectancies than we do. Does that mean that our system is better than all UHC? No. Just as your figure doesn't mean that UHC is automatically better than our system.
The truth is that as Clavos pointed out, UHC and life expectancy are largely unrelated.
Dave
146 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, your #122 can't be serious. Surely even you realize that if they are arresting and indicting that many people it's just the tip of the iceberg of how many more fraudsters there are and that the crimes they are indicted for are just a fraction of what they likely did.
Case in point, a local doctor was indicted for medicaid fraud after 30 years of practice. He processed thousands of fraudulent claims every year during that time, but the indictment was only for a handful that were well documented in his final year of practice. That would appear to be a typical pattern for this kind of fraud.
Dave
147 - roger nowosielski
It's a common occurrence, Dave. They're all doing it because they can. The little episode I cited it but a drop in a bucket. It is a prevalent practice.
I sort of conceded the point to Glenn, but in a sense, I shouldn't have. There has got to be controls put in place before making Medicare the model for UHC. The way things stand, it's a milk cow. And there is no way that you're going stop unscrupulous people from taking advantage. There are just too many of them.
I'd say, the system needs a serious overhaul from ground up before expanding it to encompass the totality of medical services to be provided.
148 - Clavos
In a very interesting opinion piece published on Real Clear Politics today, Tom Bevan notes that the much-touted comparison between Medicare's administrative costs and those of private insurers is specious because it is expressed as a percentage of total medical expenditures, and since Medicare exclusively serves patients requiring a great deal of the most expensive care (the disabled and the elderly), it gives the appearance of being lower in admin costs, when in reality, just the opposite is true.
When one compares costs on a per capita basis, the picture presented is radically different, as shown in this graph.
In fact, in 2005, the latest year for which there is data, the actual per capita administrative costs are: $509 per patient for Medicare, versus $453 for private insurers.
Bevan writes:
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.
This confirms two things most Americans already know: 1) government is rarely, if ever, more efficient than the private sector, and 2) if something sounds too good to be true, it almost always is.
149 - Clavos
The pandering by the politicians marches on.
We learn from Bloomberg that:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years.
The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy. (emphasis added)
And the beat goes on...
150 - Cindy
Interesting point army an army physician:
NEWSFLASH: 9.2 Million people already insured by a single payer system in this country
I am struck however that nobody has brought up the simple fact that the government already provides free healthcare in a single payer model to over 9 million of its population. While this system is not perfect, I believe I provide that same quality of care, offering empathetic, evidence based (one more time for good measure) care as any other physician who practices at any hospital in the country.
151 - Bliffle
Roger lets himself be fooled by a Red Herring:
135 - roger nowosielski
Speculations aside, bliffle, there are some cogent ideas expressed by Cannon concerning the importance of timing and fixing the economy first, ideas to which you're apparently as blind as a bat.
It's a classic red Herring, Roger, designed to distract the weak-minded from the actual case. And it worked with you, apparently.
152 - Bliffle
Dave advances a couple interesting ideas, novel because no one else brought them up, which is surprising since they are obvious rejoinders. But they are also easily dealt with:
#
146 - Dave Nalle
... Surely even you realize that if they are arresting and indicting that many people it's just the tip of the iceberg of how many more fraudsters there are and that the crimes they are indicted for are just a fraction of what they likely did.
Oh yeah? Sez who? Where do you get your facts and figures? Or are you just scandalizing again?
What do YOU think the percentages are, and why? All you've done so far is claim they're enormous without knowing SQUAT!
Case in point, a local doctor was indicted for medicaid fraud after 30 years of practice. He processed thousands of fraudulent claims every year during that time, but the indictment was only for a handful that were well documented in his final year of practice. That would appear to be a typical pattern for this kind of fraud.
Dave
All that suggests is that fraud-catching methods are getting better. 20 years ago fraud detection was skimpy and ineffective.
And notice that anything you've suggested about Medicare is also true about private insurance.
Do you really think that private health insurance is immune to fraud? Do you think that somehow they have methods that stymie fraud? If so, why not get medicare to use private insurance methods?
Or do you suppose that you haven't heard about fraud in the private sector because they keep it quiet to avoid bad publicity? After all, the Medicare system is PUBLIC and required by law to have open books, whereas private healthcare is not.
Remember that the 1945 McCarran-Fergusson act EXEMPTS insurance companies from Federal regulation, leaving only weak State regulation, which has allowed them to form their Oligopoly.
153 - Bliffle
Re; #149:
Why should company provided health insurance be untaxed? Other perks are taxed, like stocks and options. If an employee gets a company car he's taxed for it.
All that Baucus is doing is phasing the tax in with a slight time tilt to unions (probably a small financial exposure but a big voting block for a democrat).
154 - Bliffle
#148 represents dumb and dumber.
"Real Clear politics" is a rightwing opinion rag and their article is sourced at the "American Heritage Foundation", another like it. You're reading an echo chamber.
Dumber is comparing per capita costs between systems, which is basically immaterial since it's overall costs that are of interest.
then there's this oft-stated belief:
This confirms two things most Americans already know: 1) government is rarely, if ever, more efficient than the private sector, and 2)...
That's only ever been true when the private sector is truly competitive, i.e., antitrust is rigorously enforced, otherwise, the private sector forms a monopoly or oligopoly and systematically loots everyone by dominating the market.
And the insurance companies have a solid oligopoly.
155 - Clavos
"Real Clear politics" is a rightwing opinion rag and their article is sourced at the "American Heritage Foundation", another like it.
Oh I forgot, bliffle, rightwing sites, unlike leftwing sites are not to be believed.
What horseshit. You don't like the message, so you attempt to kill the messenger.
Dumber is comparing per capita costs between systems, which is basically immaterial since it's overall costs that are of interest.
Yet more horseshit. Given the differences in client bases, both as to size and illnesses, between the private and government insurance programs, it is, as the author so cogently argues, the only relevant comparison.
Your final "point" in that comment doesn't merit a response.
156 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, have you even looked at Obama's proposals? They're just going to strengthen the stranglehold of private insurance on the public's pocketbook and will do nothing to break up your 'oligopoly'.
Dave
157 - Cannonshop
#140
"...it's "can, CAN"...and as much as you want to scream otherwise, "Yes, we CAN!"
And you will. And the rest of us will be screwed over by it.
It's like Moon-shots, Glenn. You don't do Moon-Shots when your economy is in the toilet and going downward, you don't assume you can buy a thing on the earnings of the future, when you can't make your bills in the PRESENT.
UHC is nice, it's well-intentioned, and frankly, we're (censored) broke-flat broke and digging deeper. This is the sort of thing you buy when you are NOT BROKE, because it's a fundamental change to about 7% of a shrinking GDP, Glenn.
(Gods, I want to reach out and scream sometimes...)
Flat out, we Don't have the money. Can you process this into your equations? Health-Care costs Money. People don't work for nothing, they don't work for free, buyers when presented with a system they are already paying for, don't buy discretionary supplementals that are taxed-and pvt. Health Care IS taxed (called Payroll taxes, Income taxes, Business Taxes, Property Taxes, Taxes on Inventory, and soon, special taxes on employer-provided Health Coverage thanks to your friends who say "Yes We Can".)_
This means MORE people out of work, on the same system. Expanding the responsibilities of that system when it fails to manage those responsiblilities adequately (and that's what the Fed does), with an already shrinking pool of revenue (which will only get SMALLER under the current regime of proposals in Congress, many of which are supported by the President) Is mind-blowing in its stupidity-there's no "America" out there to soak the other costs and burdens the way we did for Europe and those other 27 countries during the Cold war era and after. We're It. Everything has been bought on credit right to the red-line and now beyond, Glenn.
It's stupid, and self-indulgent, and self-destructive to go about making things worse when they're already going bad, even in the name of making things better for a few individuals who, during their working lives, couldn't be bothered to be involved enough to understand how the things that they did to feel good about themselves have fucked the rest of us for the next few decades and beyond.
I'm thirty-six, in the prime of my working life, and I am compelled by law to pay into a social-security system that will be bankrupt by the time I'm forty. I will never see a dime of that when I'm too old to stay in the traces (assuming I can still FIND work by then). In that tiny span of life, I've watched my country go down a toilet of debt, failure, and ignorance, I've seen it lose most of its industries, watched the middle class become the Serf class, and seen people I am ashamed of being related to game the system in preference to working.
I know the fraud is there, because I've SEEN IT, Glenn-and reporting it does exactly jack-shit, because the way budgeting works for government agencies is that if they don't have 'enough clients' they get the budget cut..only it doesn't get cut, it just doesn't increase.
This takes that flawed, destructive system and that flawed, destructive, corrupting paradigm and puts a fucking supercharger on it.
Before you expand ANY system, you must first make certain it works as it is, and then make certain it can handle the expansion, and finally, you have to put in safeguards to make certain it does neither melt the rest of your system down, nor turn into something that will have to be replaced/supplemented/added to because it has failed in its fundamental mission.
More=/= better, Glenn. Frankly, "Do it NOW" thinking is what got us INTO this mess (in more ways than one), the culture of Instant-Gratification is largely responsible for issues ranging from American Obesity to the financial crimes and frauds (separate-some of those are LEGAL, but still fraud in practice), to drug abuse, the whole stupid abortion debate, and the essential collapse of Education (with the attendant pseudo and anti intellectualism that saturates our so-called culture.)
The problem: Pay for it, without adding to either the debt, or choking what's left of the economy. Assess your impacts Realistically, including the ones you don't want to acknowledge because it might knock your house of cards over, plan for the worst-case scenario FIRST, that's what you prepare for if you want to survive LESS than the worst-case.
Optimism is for salesmen, mechanics work on Pessimism. Good mechanics do the work once, and it lasts for years without major changes and without doing damage to the customer, bad ones have to replace everything multiple times and it never works correctly.
Medicare hasn't worked correctly since it was first instituted, Neither has Medicaid, nor Social Security, nor any of the other European-inspired "Social Service Reforms" pushed since LBJ altered existing programs with his "Great Society".
The War on Poverty is a failure-now we just have lots of "Slightly less uncomfortable" people in Poverty, and this won't work any BETTER. (especially formulated in the manner in which it has been formulated, in a back room, with no time for congressmen to actually read the actual bill they're voting on...kind of like Carbon Trading in that.)
We're already so deep in the red as a country that we're borrowing from people that used to borrow from us, and more than we ever loaned out. This is living on bad credit, Glenn.
It's like "How do I lose weight?" (answer: Stop eating the goddamn twinkies the way you wanted to eat them when you were six and your dad said NO. There's no Dad to say No when you're an adult, you're supposed to be responsible... same thing here. It would feel 'good' and be 'nice' if everybody was insured, but can you actually pay for it and provide a decent standard of service? Probably NOT-that shit costs money, that shit requires people to work.)
158 - Cannonshop
OH...and here...
It's not just Right-wing AMERICANS who have a problem with this...
159 - Cannonshop
Fundamentally, the problem is akin to having a car.
Do you really worry that much over rips in the upholstery or a leaky muffler when you've got a spun bearing or a rod knock?
If so, You're likely a democrat, or a Left-Republican. The problem is the American Economy is like a car with a spun bearing AND a rod knocking. It makes a lot of noise, and it crawls slowly along, but it's more likely to crap out when you NEED it, than to suddenly run like a champ because you added some muffler tape and a new ignition module.
160 - roger nowosielski
#151,
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
We've been without UHC for all this time, and waiting extra six months or so if it means doing it right ain't gonna kill us.
Rather than dumping the money into a system that is far from foolproof and subject to all kinds of abuses, fix the goddamn system first, revamp it, clean it up, whatever it takes. Such an action would not only command a wide public support but it would also ensure successful passage. Haste makes waste, remember, but apparently you've forgotten.
But no, you're so fixated on getting it done right here and now that you throw all caution to the wind.
So yes, I'm going to repeat what I said: you've become a bean counter rather than a thinker. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
161 - roger nowosielski
Well, I kind of think what you said earlier how expediency has become the MO behind every government policy and action. And we continue along that road, then I really don't see how we'll ever be able to come up with viable solutions to the problems facing us. It's only going to get worse despite best intentions and contrary to all appearances. But the average Joe ain't gonna see past the gloss that's being put on things. Perhaps it will take nothing short of a total collapse of America as we know it before the realization sets in. And by that time, mark my words, it will be too late.
162 - Dave Nalle
Going back to the issue of medicare fraud vs. fraud in the health insurance system, Bliffle once again made a bogus argument when he claimed that both are being defrauded equally.
I'm sure there are figures out there which I could get if I had a decent internet connection right now, but in the absence of the figures, just apply simple logic. Bureaucrats working for the government have only the incentive of their own sense of right and wrong to ferret out medicare/medicaid fraud. On the other hand private insurance companies hire people who are paid specifically to find fraud and that's their entire job. The profit motive naturally makes them more efficient in this area. It is the same mindset which causes them to disallow certain benefits and cut those with preexisting conditions, and the left will freely admit that private insurance does those things -- well, doing those things goes hand in hand with pursuing fraud and having very little of it as a result.
Another inherent benefit of private insurance over UHC.
Dave
163 - Bliffle
Dave says:
Bliffle once again made a bogus argument when he claimed that both are being defrauded equally.
I'm not sure I said 'equally', but given lack of solid data about either private or medicare fraud, what can we assume?
I'm sure there are figures out there which I could get if I had a decent internet connection right now,...
I look forward to seeing those figures.
... but in the absence of the figures, just apply simple logic. Bureaucrats working for the government have only the incentive of their own sense of right and wrong to ferret out medicare/medicaid fraud. On the other hand private insurance companies hire people who are paid specifically to find fraud and that's their entire job.
Medicare also hires private fraud-sniffers who are similarly motivated.
The profit motive naturally makes them more efficient in this area.
True. Sometimes Medicare folks even go over to the enemy to make the money they are frustrated at not making simply by doing good fraud-sniffing ("it's your JOB! No, you don't get a bonus for ferreting out a $100million fraud!". You can hear the boss saying it.) But there are higher levels of fraud-sniffing to catch that, they just operate behind a curtain.
Most of the fraud-sniffers keep a low profile to avoid being hacked. That would be bad: getting hacked by fraudsters. In fact some use Real Private Networks (like ISDN) that assure private communications instead of VPNs.
164 - Bliffle
The health insurance companies are NOT the solution to the problem, they ARE the problem.
Because of the special privileges they have accumulated over the years, the immunity from regulation, and the de facto oligopoly.
Right now healthcare expenses consume 18% of the GDP and in a few years it will be 30%, because of the unregulated monopoly they have.
We either have to get rid of the insurance companies or bring them under regulation. Otherwise they will consume the entire USA economy and there will be an explosive crisis.
165 - Bliffle
The health insurance companies are NOT the solution to the problem, they ARE the problem.
Because of the special privileges they have accumulated over the years, the immunity from regulation, and the de facto oligopoly.
Right now healthcare expenses consume 18% of the GDP and in a few years it will be 30%, because of the unregulated monopoly they have.
We either have to get rid of the insurance companies or bring them under regulation. Otherwise they will consume the entire USA economy and there will be an explosive crisis.
166 - Zedd
What is at the core of this issue is the outdated fear of Communism. The "conservatives" are simply making outdated arguments because they are stuck on notions that don't apply to our world today.
Actually the reason that they are so ineffective is because their position is irrelevant.
Gen X perspective.... Hold on to your hats geezers
No one cares about making government big. Can we move on.
Big or small the point is whether we are prosperous as individuals and if would civil liberties are in tact. The point is whether it works for ME. Not whether it almost looks like communism.
If a small government is in place and everyone is dying of starvation and the streets are littered with trash, what's the point? Answer: There is none. You just have a small ineffective government.
Conversely, if the government is big and the people are starving and the streets are littered with trash, what is the point? Answer: There is none. You just have a big ineffective government.
The point is whether the government insures the health and security of it's people. Is it run well? Is it fair and smart? Big or small.
The nit picky minutia ridden comments that are based on outdated ideological arguments must end. We need to FIX health care. Focus.
167 - roger nowosielski
The well-being of the people, whether in terms of healthcare or physical, material well-being, should be the priority. And the dominant political and economic idea should be to spread this well-being beyond our shores - so as to encompass the entire globe if possible.
Improving material conditions, eliminating hunger and poverty, must come first before ideological consideration. Only then can education properly kick in, not before.
168 - Zedd
Especially when there is no opposition to your ideology.
169 - roger nowosielski
Well, I'd say that's an example of the kind of new thinking that's required.
Is it ideology trying to eliminate poverty and hunger in the interest of worldwide prosperity? I should think it ought to be the goal of all our leaders, not to mention all right-thinking people.
"Imagine" by John Lennon comes to mind.
170 - roger nowosielski
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
171 - Cindy
posting anarchist songs. does this mean you get it? keep listening to the lyrics. it's the only way to do it. it's not possible this way:
I should think it ought to be the goal of all our leaders...
172 - zingzing
cindy, you should listen to a band called crass (english anarcho-punk band 77-84). read up on them as well. they did all their own production, recording, and artwork, started their own label, lived on an anarchist commune that they created outside of london, everything. heroes, i say.
173 - roger nowosielski
There is a context to this, provided by the exchange on this thread.
174 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
"On the other hand private insurance companies hire people who are paid specifically to find fraud and that's their entire job."
Sounds good...except that the federal bureaucrats ALSO have no PROFIT MOTIVE, by which I mean they have no pressure on them to always make more money for the company, or save more money by denying service or canceling policies.
The private companies DO have a 'profit motive'. Not only that, but the conservative wisdom that enough competition will drive down prices has not done so - as can be seen by the constant rise of prices two to three times the rate of inflation over the past decade or so.
175 - Clavos
In fact, the bureaucrats have NO pressure on them, not even the pressure of "perform or you'll lose your job," which is the perennial problem with them, they don't have to do a good job, so they don't.