Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
[quote name='Msut77']Well like FoC was saying, 1 percent over 10 years to insure tens of millions more vs. the current 7% per annum currently.
Which would you choose?
Now as for what you quoted me saying... I will ask the same of you, what would you do to start containing costs?
There are things that can be done, but no con so far is interested in actual solutions because bitching from the sidelines is so much easier.[/QUOTE]
1% increase over what the government is expected to spend on healthcare, vs 7% increase for health care costs in the industry overall....
how do you figure that these two stats are one or the other? Cant health care costs in the industry rise, while at the same time the government will spend more?
Which would you choose?
Now as for what you quoted me saying... I will ask the same of you, what would you do to start containing costs?
There are things that can be done, but no con so far is interested in actual solutions because bitching from the sidelines is so much easier.[/QUOTE]
1% increase over what the government is expected to spend on healthcare, vs 7% increase for health care costs in the industry overall....
how do you figure that these two stats are one or the other? Cant health care costs in the industry rise, while at the same time the government will spend more?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']1% increase over what the government is expected to spend on healthcare, vs 7% increase for health care costs in the industry overall....
how do you figure that these two stats are one or the other? Cant health care costs in the industry rise, while at the same time the government will spend more?[/QUOTE]
It's 1% more than the expected rate of increase, so that's on top of what it was already expected to rise. It's not 1% instead of 7%; it's 1% additional. Which works out to $311 billion over 10 years. Oops, I guess it doesn't reduce the deficit after all. Too bad you believed our lies upon lies, suckers!
how do you figure that these two stats are one or the other? Cant health care costs in the industry rise, while at the same time the government will spend more?[/QUOTE]
It's 1% more than the expected rate of increase, so that's on top of what it was already expected to rise. It's not 1% instead of 7%; it's 1% additional. Which works out to $311 billion over 10 years. Oops, I guess it doesn't reduce the deficit after all. Too bad you believed our lies upon lies, suckers!
[quote name='Knoell']1% increase over what the government is expected to spend on healthcare, vs 7% increase for health care costs in the industry overall....
how do you figure that these two stats are one or the other? Cant health care costs in the industry rise, while at the same time the government will spend more?[/QUOTE]
There is a CBO score and there is a CMS score, the CBO score takes into account the offsets and cost controls the CMS score just takes into account the spending.
The CMS score only projects to 2019, for a bill that only goes full in effect in 2014.
Long term, even using a relatively pessimistic projection the bill that passed reduces the deficit.
You should be very pleased with that right?
how do you figure that these two stats are one or the other? Cant health care costs in the industry rise, while at the same time the government will spend more?[/QUOTE]
There is a CBO score and there is a CMS score, the CBO score takes into account the offsets and cost controls the CMS score just takes into account the spending.
The CMS score only projects to 2019, for a bill that only goes full in effect in 2014.
Long term, even using a relatively pessimistic projection the bill that passed reduces the deficit.
You should be very pleased with that right?
[quote name='Msut77']There is a CBO score and there is a CMS score, the CBO score takes into account the offsets and cost controls the CMS score just takes into account the spending.
The CMS score only projects to 2019, for a bill that only goes full in effect in 2014.
Long term, even using a relatively pessimistic projection the bill that passed reduces the deficit.
You should be very pleased with that right?[/QUOTE]
How does that work out? From what I can tell the spending to be attributed to this health care bill starts this year, or maybe 2011, but we dont get the benefits of 10 years, we get the benefits of 6 while paying 10 years. Sure this might reduce the deficit if costs dont go up, which they already have, but what happens from 2020 to 2029? We will have about the same amount of money to spend on 10 years of benefits. If they are depending on the costs to go down, they better pray because if the costs stay the same or rise they will be in deep shit.
The CMS score only projects to 2019, for a bill that only goes full in effect in 2014.
Long term, even using a relatively pessimistic projection the bill that passed reduces the deficit.
You should be very pleased with that right?[/QUOTE]
How does that work out? From what I can tell the spending to be attributed to this health care bill starts this year, or maybe 2011, but we dont get the benefits of 10 years, we get the benefits of 6 while paying 10 years. Sure this might reduce the deficit if costs dont go up, which they already have, but what happens from 2020 to 2029? We will have about the same amount of money to spend on 10 years of benefits. If they are depending on the costs to go down, they better pray because if the costs stay the same or rise they will be in deep shit.
[quote name='Knoell']From what I can tell from GOP talking points the spending to be attributed to this health care bill starts this year, or maybe 2011, but we dont get the benefits of 10 years, we get the benefits of 6 while paying 10 years.[/QUOTE]
Fixed. Now do you know where in the bill that argument (pay for 10 get benefits of 6) comes from? Or does it ring hollow?
Fixed. Now do you know where in the bill that argument (pay for 10 get benefits of 6) comes from? Or does it ring hollow?
[quote name='IRHari']Fixed. Now do you know where in the bill that argument (pay for 10 get benefits of 6) comes from? Or does it ring hollow?[/QUOTE]
The new increases in specific taxes, and such start this year. The benefits do not start coming until 2014.
The new increases in specific taxes, and such start this year. The benefits do not start coming until 2014.
[quote name='Knoell']How does that work out?[/quote]
Read this thread and the links.
A) Just getting a handle on the rate at which costs grow would be enough to avert complete disaster B) Looking at just spending isn't the whole picture because there are offsets and controls some of which will pay off long term and C) I ain't going to be lectured by a 'Bagger about controlling health care costs, there is plenty that could be done but you and your entire coterie of fail are unable to come up with a plan beyond a fervent belief in magic and you refuse to listen to grown ups with actual ideas.
A lot of the benefits start now, the health exchanges won't be up and running until then.
Read this thread and the links.
A) Just getting a handle on the rate at which costs grow would be enough to avert complete disaster B) Looking at just spending isn't the whole picture because there are offsets and controls some of which will pay off long term and C) I ain't going to be lectured by a 'Bagger about controlling health care costs, there is plenty that could be done but you and your entire coterie of fail are unable to come up with a plan beyond a fervent belief in magic and you refuse to listen to grown ups with actual ideas.
A lot of the benefits start now, the health exchanges won't be up and running until then.
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer
Banned
Surprise!
Profits up 51% this quarter WITHOUT the 39% rate hike. Queue to the right to complain about health care having a shit margin.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']The new increases in specific taxes, and such start this year. The benefits do not start coming until 2014.[/QUOTE]
Well, yes and no. Rules like allowing kids to be on parents' health plans until age 26 and not denying coverage to people who are already sick (i.e. with pre-existing conditions) mostly go into effect immediately or soon. The actual co-ops and other major expenditures don't start until 2014. So yes, the spending for the most part starts four years after the tax increases, but not all the benefits wait until 2014. Of course, these "benefits" will have the effect of making premiums increase faster for all of us than they otherwise would have, so you've got that part too.
Well, yes and no. Rules like allowing kids to be on parents' health plans until age 26 and not denying coverage to people who are already sick (i.e. with pre-existing conditions) mostly go into effect immediately or soon. The actual co-ops and other major expenditures don't start until 2014. So yes, the spending for the most part starts four years after the tax increases, but not all the benefits wait until 2014. Of course, these "benefits" will have the effect of making premiums increase faster for all of us than they otherwise would have, so you've got that part too.
Covering people with pre-existing conditions doesn't necessarily mean higher costs all around. After all every other civilized, industrialized country has managed to do it and spending less than we ever have.
Meanwhile someone should start an online petition to have all the tens of millions of people who are able to get access to health care soon (especially those who would have died) to apologize personally to you because costs might go up to 1% more than they otherwise would have.
Meanwhile someone should start an online petition to have all the tens of millions of people who are able to get access to health care soon (especially those who would have died) to apologize personally to you because costs might go up to 1% more than they otherwise would have.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='speedracer']Profits up 51% this quarter WITHOUT the 39% rate hike. Queue to the right to complain about health care having a shit margin.[/QUOTE]
But they'll get to raise premiums soon, right?
Those health care companies shouldn't have to make due on the same amount of money. Their clients do, but not them, right?
But they'll get to raise premiums soon, right?
Those health care companies shouldn't have to make due on the same amount of money. Their clients do, but not them, right?
[quote name='Msut77']Covering people with pre-existing conditions doesn't necessarily mean higher costs all around. After all every other civilized, industrialized country has managed to do it and spending less than we ever have.
Meanwhile someone should start an online petition to have all the tens of millions of people who are able to get access to health care soon (especially those who would have died) to apologize personally to you because costs might go up to 1% more than they otherwise would have.[/QUOTE]
? you make 1% sound so trivial and yet it is 1% of the projected spending, which means it is a big 1% increase. Not to mention this is only the first story, what will you say after the second story of a 4% increase, third for a 10% increase? I guarentee you we are not saving money by insuring 30 million more people thats for damn sure.
Meanwhile someone should start an online petition to have all the tens of millions of people who are able to get access to health care soon (especially those who would have died) to apologize personally to you because costs might go up to 1% more than they otherwise would have.[/QUOTE]
? you make 1% sound so trivial and yet it is 1% of the projected spending, which means it is a big 1% increase. Not to mention this is only the first story, what will you say after the second story of a 4% increase, third for a 10% increase? I guarentee you we are not saving money by insuring 30 million more people thats for damn sure.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']? you make 1% sound so trivial and yet it is 1% of the projected spending, which means it is a big 1% increase. Not to mention this is only the first story, what will you say after the second story of a 4% increase, third for a 10% increase? I guarentee you we are not saving money by insuring 30 million more people thats for damn sure.[/QUOTE]
The problem is nobody has the balls to bring free market to its conclusion. No proof of insurance? Execution.
The other problem is certain people can't accept 36 other countries have better aggregate care and won't review their systems to determine if it could be copied and would be an improvement.
The problem is nobody has the balls to bring free market to its conclusion. No proof of insurance? Execution.
The other problem is certain people can't accept 36 other countries have better aggregate care and won't review their systems to determine if it could be copied and would be an improvement.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The problem is nobody has the balls to bring free market to its conclusion. No proof of insurance? Execution.
The other problem is certain people can't accept 36 other countries have better aggregate care and won't review their systems to determine if it could be copied and would be an improvement.[/QUOTE]
Sigh, what 36 countries have better care? are we talking about the self-admitted flawed WHO study again?
The other problem is certain people can't accept 36 other countries have better aggregate care and won't review their systems to determine if it could be copied and would be an improvement.[/QUOTE]
Sigh, what 36 countries have better care? are we talking about the self-admitted flawed WHO study again?
[quote name='Knoell']? you make 1% sound so trivial and yet it is 1% of the projected spending, which means it is a big 1% increase.[/quote]
Again just spending wise, it is a lot of money to you or me but quite literally trivial in the context of how much we spend on healthcare in this country.
Yes, because the second story involves the offsets and cost controls. Which like I have said before looking at just the spending is being dishonest.
Your guarantee isn't worth anything.
Other countries manage to spend less than we do while insuring everyone, you should know that at the very least.
Again just spending wise, it is a lot of money to you or me but quite literally trivial in the context of how much we spend on healthcare in this country.
Yes, because the second story involves the offsets and cost controls. Which like I have said before looking at just the spending is being dishonest.
Your guarantee isn't worth anything.
Other countries manage to spend less than we do while insuring everyone, you should know that at the very least.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Knoell']Sigh, what 36 countries have better care? are we talking about the self-admitted flawed WHO study again?[/QUOTE]
"self-admitted flawed"?
cite your source.
"self-admitted flawed"?
cite your source.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']I am pretty sure he means something I said, although suffice to say he is twisting things around because he has no argument otherwise.[/QUOTE]
It is a defensive position. Some people refuse to look at how others as a way to improve themselves.
EDIT: The US has the best healthcare system for everybody in the world. The WHO is just a bully picking on us.
It is a defensive position. Some people refuse to look at how others as a way to improve themselves.
EDIT: The US has the best healthcare system for everybody in the world. The WHO is just a bully picking on us.
so many sources, I figured you guys can pick one out you like.
http://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=7499efae2f902980
I like this one. http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf
http://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=7499efae2f902980
I like this one. http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='cato']Financial Fairness. A health system’s financial fairness (FF) ismeasured by determining a household’s contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households. The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal). In the aggregate, poor people spend a larger percentage of income on health care than do the rich.4 Insofar as health care is regarded as a necessity, people can be expected to spend a decreasing fractionof their income onhealth care as their income increases. The same would be true of food, except that the rich tend to buy higher-quality food. The FF factor is not an objective measure of health attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. This is a value judgment not applied to most other goods, even those regarded as necessities such as food and housing.Most people understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage of their income on these items.
[/quote]
Translation: Poor people should have poorer health care because they're poor.
Did I get that right?
[quote name='cato']Health Distribution and Responsiveness
Distribution. These two factors measure inequality in the other factors. Health Distribution measures inequality in health level6 within a country, while Responsiveness Distribution measures inequality in health responsiveness within a country. Strictly speaking, neither of these factors measures health care performance, because inequality is distinct from quality of care. It is entirely possible to have a health care system characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone. Suppose, for instance, thatCountry A has health responsiveness that is “excellent” for most citizens but merely “good” for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly “poor” for everyone. Country B would score higher than Country A in terms of responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having
better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens. The same point applies to the distribution of health level.[/quote]
I'm going to call half bullshit on this one. If everybody in country B has a score of 60 on some arbitrary scale and the lowest score of anybody in country A has a score of 70, country A won't have a lower score.
Now... The reason why the US has a lower score is that some citizens practically have a score of 0 because they're uninsured.
[/quote]
Translation: Poor people should have poorer health care because they're poor.
Did I get that right?
[quote name='cato']Health Distribution and Responsiveness
Distribution. These two factors measure inequality in the other factors. Health Distribution measures inequality in health level6 within a country, while Responsiveness Distribution measures inequality in health responsiveness within a country. Strictly speaking, neither of these factors measures health care performance, because inequality is distinct from quality of care. It is entirely possible to have a health care system characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone. Suppose, for instance, thatCountry A has health responsiveness that is “excellent” for most citizens but merely “good” for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly “poor” for everyone. Country B would score higher than Country A in terms of responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having
better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens. The same point applies to the distribution of health level.[/quote]
I'm going to call half bullshit on this one. If everybody in country B has a score of 60 on some arbitrary scale and the lowest score of anybody in country A has a score of 70, country A won't have a lower score.
Now... The reason why the US has a lower score is that some citizens practically have a score of 0 because they're uninsured.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Translation: Poor people should have poorer health care because they're poor.
Did I get that right?
I'm going to call half bullshit on this one. If everybody in country B has a score of 60 on some arbitrary scale and the lowest score of anybody in country A has a score of 70, country A won't have a lower score.
Now... The reason why the US has a lower score is that some citizens practically have a score of 0 because they're uninsured.[/QUOTE]
Nope you didnt get the first point right....not at all, you just sided with great shock value statement.
For the second point Do you understand that country B will get a better rating simply because all of their citizens are at the same (poor) rating, while country As citizens will get a worse rating because some people receive better care than others, but its not equal even though none receive care below country Bs rating.
Did I get that right?
I'm going to call half bullshit on this one. If everybody in country B has a score of 60 on some arbitrary scale and the lowest score of anybody in country A has a score of 70, country A won't have a lower score.
Now... The reason why the US has a lower score is that some citizens practically have a score of 0 because they're uninsured.[/QUOTE]
Nope you didnt get the first point right....not at all, you just sided with great shock value statement.
For the second point Do you understand that country B will get a better rating simply because all of their citizens are at the same (poor) rating, while country As citizens will get a worse rating because some people receive better care than others, but its not equal even though none receive care below country Bs rating.
[quote name='Knoell']For the second point Do you understand that country B will get a better rating simply because all of their citizens are at the same (poor) rating, while country As citizens will get a worse rating because some people receive better care than others, but its not equal even though none receive care below country Bs rating.[/QUOTE]
Using your logic we should judge how nice the average Iraqi persons house is by looking at Saddam's palaces.
Using your logic we should judge how nice the average Iraqi persons house is by looking at Saddam's palaces.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Living in Zimbabwe is fantastic! Look at how nice Robert Mugabe's places are!
typical guy
CAGiversary!
Before we can attempt to solve anything, we have to understand what's wrong with the health care system in this country. That's why I'm posting here - to tell everyone. The problem is the profit motive. But we're a capitalist country you would tell me? I agree, we're a capitalist nation. The problem here is who the insurance companies are responsible to. Why, they're responsible to their members you say? Wrong. They are public companies in our capitalist country. Their job is not to take care of their members. Their job, like that of every other company, is to provide the most profit for their share holders (owners).
By now we've all heard the stories of insurance recission such as the lady that had insurance for years but when she had medical problems the company dug around in her past and what's this? She didn't disclose she had severe acne as a teenager! You're no longer a member and we're going to sue you for previous payments we made! This kind of thing would not happen if these companies were not beholden to their shareholders the way they are. We have to fact the fact that we've got problems with our health insurance industry.
How would I solve our insurance problems? Instead of demanding everyone get health insurance to lower rates, by law limit the amount of profit an insurance company can make. 1% of their total premiums can be profit. If the companies want to be allowed to have more profit, increase the amount allowed based on the number of currently uninsurable individuals. So if you have some number (tbd) of currently uninsurable people, we'll let you have a 2% profit. If they profit more than the amount allowed, then the government taxes away everything in excess. This will keep premiums down (as there would be no profit motive to raise premiums beyond the allowed levels) and ensure that everyone that needs insurance can get it. People with cancer will be sought out to join various insurance companies instead of kicked out.
I understand this goes against the capitalistic ways of our nation but I just can't agree with full fledged capitalism when it comes to a life and death situation. Not being able to get treatment for a fatal tumor, epilepsy, diabetes, or some other condition because you can't get insurance is not the same as a company finding efficiencies to save money in the manufacture of computer parts. These are (literally) people's lives, not cogs in a machine. We need to change the profit motive so that these insurance companies will not feel beholden to their shareholders to make more money than the next guy.
By now we've all heard the stories of insurance recission such as the lady that had insurance for years but when she had medical problems the company dug around in her past and what's this? She didn't disclose she had severe acne as a teenager! You're no longer a member and we're going to sue you for previous payments we made! This kind of thing would not happen if these companies were not beholden to their shareholders the way they are. We have to fact the fact that we've got problems with our health insurance industry.
How would I solve our insurance problems? Instead of demanding everyone get health insurance to lower rates, by law limit the amount of profit an insurance company can make. 1% of their total premiums can be profit. If the companies want to be allowed to have more profit, increase the amount allowed based on the number of currently uninsurable individuals. So if you have some number (tbd) of currently uninsurable people, we'll let you have a 2% profit. If they profit more than the amount allowed, then the government taxes away everything in excess. This will keep premiums down (as there would be no profit motive to raise premiums beyond the allowed levels) and ensure that everyone that needs insurance can get it. People with cancer will be sought out to join various insurance companies instead of kicked out.
I understand this goes against the capitalistic ways of our nation but I just can't agree with full fledged capitalism when it comes to a life and death situation. Not being able to get treatment for a fatal tumor, epilepsy, diabetes, or some other condition because you can't get insurance is not the same as a company finding efficiencies to save money in the manufacture of computer parts. These are (literally) people's lives, not cogs in a machine. We need to change the profit motive so that these insurance companies will not feel beholden to their shareholders to make more money than the next guy.
speedracer
Banned
But typical guy, that will just cause doctors to "go Galt" and stop working since they'll have no motive to. What would you do about that?
And what about the middle men at the insurance company? Don't they have a right to make a market, even though their market is depending on rejecting life saving treatment? Someone has to cull the weak and the pocketbook is the means by which we determine that.
If only there were people trying the sort of thing you suggest that we could study and try to improve upon. It's definitely harder to blaze a trail when everything about your system is #1 like ours.
Also, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Trust me on that.
And what about the middle men at the insurance company? Don't they have a right to make a market, even though their market is depending on rejecting life saving treatment? Someone has to cull the weak and the pocketbook is the means by which we determine that.
If only there were people trying the sort of thing you suggest that we could study and try to improve upon. It's definitely harder to blaze a trail when everything about your system is #1 like ours.
Also, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Trust me on that.
typical guy
CAGiversary!
[quote name='speedracer']But typical guy, that will just cause doctors to "go Galt" and stop working since they'll have no motive to. What would you do about that?
And what about the middle men at the insurance company? Don't they have a right to make a market, even though their market is depending on rejecting life saving treatment? Someone has to cull the weak and the pocketbook is the means by which we determine that.
If only there were people trying the sort of thing you suggest that we could study and try to improve upon. It's definitely harder to blaze a trail when everything about your system is #1 like ours.
Also, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Trust me on that.[/QUOTE]
Why would it have any impact on doctors? I patently disagree with this assertion. We are not regulating doctors fees at all. We're regulating insurance company profits ONLY. So the doctors can charge what they please. The insurance companies pay whatever the rate they negotiate and then make 1% profit. So the doctor's bills for the insurance company are say, 3 billion dollars. The insurance company can that year can then charge their members total premiums of $3,030,000,000. The 3 billion covers care and the 30 million is the 1% profit they're allowed to have because they have no high risk individuals.
And what about the middle men at the insurance company? Don't they have a right to make a market, even though their market is depending on rejecting life saving treatment? Someone has to cull the weak and the pocketbook is the means by which we determine that.
If only there were people trying the sort of thing you suggest that we could study and try to improve upon. It's definitely harder to blaze a trail when everything about your system is #1 like ours.
Also, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Trust me on that.[/QUOTE]
Why would it have any impact on doctors? I patently disagree with this assertion. We are not regulating doctors fees at all. We're regulating insurance company profits ONLY. So the doctors can charge what they please. The insurance companies pay whatever the rate they negotiate and then make 1% profit. So the doctor's bills for the insurance company are say, 3 billion dollars. The insurance company can that year can then charge their members total premiums of $3,030,000,000. The 3 billion covers care and the 30 million is the 1% profit they're allowed to have because they have no high risk individuals.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='typical guy']Why would it have any impact on doctors? I patently disagree with this assertion. We are not regulating doctors fees at all. We're regulating insurance company profits ONLY. So the doctors can charge what they please. The insurance companies pay whatever the rate they negotiate and then make 1% profit. So the doctor's bills for the insurance company are say, 3 billion dollars. The insurance company can that year can then charge their members total premiums of $3,030,000,000. The 3 billion covers care and the 30 million is the 1% profit they're allowed to have because they have no high risk individuals.[/QUOTE]
But why would anyone put any money in these firms if the return is 1%? I can do better with lottery tickets.
But why would anyone put any money in these firms if the return is 1%? I can do better with lottery tickets.
typical guy
CAGiversary!
[quote name='speedracer']But why would anyone put any money in these firms if the return is 1%? I can do better with lottery tickets.[/QUOTE]
Why would anyone buy government bonds when the market was at it's lowest? Did you know that people were investing in short term treasuries when there was a 0% yield? There are institutional investors that are interested in long term guaranteed gains such as pension funds. The profit would only be 1% if they couldn't get more of the high risk pool into their plan. So if you have enough high risk individuals to be allowed say, 3% profit then you'll have investors rushing to you.
And trust me, 1% is way better than you can do with lottery tickets.
edit:
I should add that I haven't studied the effects of my proposal. I've just been thinking on the problems of the system and this is the best I could come up with. I'm sure we could tinker with the percentage profit allowed, perhaps augment it with some kind of dividend payouts or some kind of other incentive to draw investors. I'm not saying it's perfect or that you can't find faults but most of the issues we have with our current system would be solved. The main problems would then getting people interested in "boring" companies to invest in as well as possible fraud by doctors working with the insurance company to create artificial costs to raise the amount of profit allowed.
Why would anyone buy government bonds when the market was at it's lowest? Did you know that people were investing in short term treasuries when there was a 0% yield? There are institutional investors that are interested in long term guaranteed gains such as pension funds. The profit would only be 1% if they couldn't get more of the high risk pool into their plan. So if you have enough high risk individuals to be allowed say, 3% profit then you'll have investors rushing to you.
And trust me, 1% is way better than you can do with lottery tickets.
edit:
I should add that I haven't studied the effects of my proposal. I've just been thinking on the problems of the system and this is the best I could come up with. I'm sure we could tinker with the percentage profit allowed, perhaps augment it with some kind of dividend payouts or some kind of other incentive to draw investors. I'm not saying it's perfect or that you can't find faults but most of the issues we have with our current system would be solved. The main problems would then getting people interested in "boring" companies to invest in as well as possible fraud by doctors working with the insurance company to create artificial costs to raise the amount of profit allowed.
speedracer
Banned
But that is socialism. Everything the government touches turns to shit.
typical guy
CAGiversary!
[quote name='speedracer']But that is socialism. Everything the government touches turns to shit.[/QUOTE]
Look, I'm not here to debate "but that's socialism" because that's not a very strong argument to me. I'm not suggesting we nationalize all industry. I'm not suggesting we nationalize health insurance. I'm saying these companies will remain privately owned but their profit is legislated by Congress. Of course there are socialist aspects to it but so what?
Look, I'm not here to debate "but that's socialism" because that's not a very strong argument to me. I'm not suggesting we nationalize all industry. I'm not suggesting we nationalize health insurance. I'm saying these companies will remain privately owned but their profit is legislated by Congress. Of course there are socialist aspects to it but so what?
speedracer
Banned
So why not nationalize health care then? If the middle man function performed by insurance companies clearly adds zero value, why even bothering paying a tax to them to exist?
typical guy
CAGiversary!
[quote name='speedracer']So why not nationalize health care?[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't that lead to the issues with doctor pay that you're concerned with?
As for your edited addition:
Besides, the government doesn't have the will necessary to charge the rates required to pay for things we currently have. Do you think we're going to be able to pay for a whole new national health care system? Companies can charge what they please and people can chose the company that best suits them. This leads to price competition. The government would have no premium competition and even then the government would probably borrow to pay for the bills because they would charge less premium than necessary to even cover costs. Our country has the will to pay for premiums but if these premiums were paid as taxes, the will would be lost.
Let me add this:
If the average American does his taxes and his bill is $12,000, he pays it and complains about high taxes. Now lets assume this guy is paying $8,000 a year in insurance premiums. Now the county nationalizes the health care industry. This same American does his taxes the next year and is outraged at the $20,000 bill - never mind that he was already paying that 8k every year anyway, all he sees is his money going to taxes. Even assuming the government can be as efficient as multiple competing companies (which I don't believe is possible), the will to tax Average Joe American would not be there so we'll find ourselves handing out tax credits for $4,000 off your tax bill if your income is below 200k or whatever.
We simply don't have the ability to do what competing companies do nor do we have the will to charge the necessary rates to everyone. I simply suggested this idea because it solves many of the problems.
Wouldn't that lead to the issues with doctor pay that you're concerned with?
As for your edited addition:
Besides, the government doesn't have the will necessary to charge the rates required to pay for things we currently have. Do you think we're going to be able to pay for a whole new national health care system? Companies can charge what they please and people can chose the company that best suits them. This leads to price competition. The government would have no premium competition and even then the government would probably borrow to pay for the bills because they would charge less premium than necessary to even cover costs. Our country has the will to pay for premiums but if these premiums were paid as taxes, the will would be lost.
Let me add this:
If the average American does his taxes and his bill is $12,000, he pays it and complains about high taxes. Now lets assume this guy is paying $8,000 a year in insurance premiums. Now the county nationalizes the health care industry. This same American does his taxes the next year and is outraged at the $20,000 bill - never mind that he was already paying that 8k every year anyway, all he sees is his money going to taxes. Even assuming the government can be as efficient as multiple competing companies (which I don't believe is possible), the will to tax Average Joe American would not be there so we'll find ourselves handing out tax credits for $4,000 off your tax bill if your income is below 200k or whatever.
We simply don't have the ability to do what competing companies do nor do we have the will to charge the necessary rates to everyone. I simply suggested this idea because it solves many of the problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='typical guy']Wouldn't that lead to the issues with doctor pay that you're concerned with?[/QUOTE]
My particular brand of conservatism does not require ideological integrity, merely a willingness to defend to dogma.
I agree with your addition I guess, but I still don't see how or why that would preclude the government from competing.
My particular brand of conservatism does not require ideological integrity, merely a willingness to defend to dogma.
I thought I could get it in before you got back. Didn't mean to sneak one past you there.
Well, it depends on how much you think insurance companies skim off the top. If they skim enough, theoretically the government could provide it cheaper without them. At the very least in competition with them.
But this is such an anomaly in our current system. We go where our jobs tell us to. Rarely do we truly shop for coverage.
They would if they were in competition with the government for the healthy and young. It seems to me that the government gets stuck with the disability cases and poor cases, leaving the insurance companies to (naturally) go after the higher value targets. If the profit motive is a good idea, then why would a government entity competing directly against them be worse than capping their return at 1%?
I agree with your addition I guess, but I still don't see how or why that would preclude the government from competing.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Nope you didnt get the first point right....not at all, you just sided with great shock value statement.
[/QUOTE]
Don't the rich consume more health care?
[/QUOTE]
Don't the rich consume more health care?
If you limit profits to 1%, investors would find alot better places to put their money and it would go bankrupt. If you nationalize health care the government will try to keep rates artificially low and cause a deficit. You guys are arguing which is the lesser of two evils.
[quote name='Knoell']What are you going on about?[/QUOTE]
Using your "logic" we should judge the quality of housing in Iraq by only looking at Saddam's palaces. That is what your "position" and the conservative position in general comes down to, it is a con trope saying we have the best healthcare in the world because the Emir of Bum
istan and Premier of whatever come here for medical treatment.
You have zero idea what you are talking about, that is true in general but especially right now.
Using your "logic" we should judge the quality of housing in Iraq by only looking at Saddam's palaces. That is what your "position" and the conservative position in general comes down to, it is a con trope saying we have the best healthcare in the world because the Emir of Bum
istan and Premier of whatever come here for medical treatment.You have zero idea what you are talking about, that is true in general but especially right now.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Knoell']If you limit profits to 1%, investors would find alot better places to put their money and it would go bankrupt. If you nationalize health care the government will try to keep rates artificially low and cause a deficit. You guys are arguing which is the lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]
You should read our conversation again. We covered that. I was playing the part of a conservative with a brain. I know, it was tough to follow.
You should read our conversation again. We covered that. I was playing the part of a conservative with a brain. I know, it was tough to follow.
speedracer
Banned
Can I answer a question with a question? What did you find lacking in his answers?
typical guy
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Knoell']If you limit profits to 1%, investors would find alot better places to put their money and it would go bankrupt. If you nationalize health care the government will try to keep rates artificially low and cause a deficit. You guys are arguing which is the lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]
The 1% limit was not set in stone, that would be the baseline if the company has no high risk individuals in the plan. The more high risk people, the higher they are allowed to have their profit margin. Also, we can allow them to pay out dividends to sweeten the pot for investors. Institutional investors for things like pensions and such would snap up these stocks. Imagine a company with a guaranteed 4% profit per year with a 1% dividend (5% total profit) because they have a lot of high risk people in their insurance plan. They would have investors swooping in all over for this. People were buying treasuries when the payout was 0% a while back! People that bought a lot of the mortgage backed securities are institutional investors that got burned. They thought they were buying the least risky, AAA bonds available. Small guaranteed returns with no risk of loss. These same investors would be more than happy to buy up stock in an insurance company like one I mentioned. most of this is a rehash of what I already typed but I went ahead and re-wrote it to save you the trouble of looking back.
The government would tax away any excess over the amount allowed by their high risk pool. This money could be set aside for 5 years. So if the company is allowed 50 million in profits one year but makes 80 million, 30 million is taxed and placed into the pool. Within the next 5 years, if that company's profit is below the 50 million mark (like that company only makes a profit of 40 million the next year), they can pull some of the excess out of the pool to increase their profit. This will help guarantee profit margins for investors worried about risk.
The 1% limit was not set in stone, that would be the baseline if the company has no high risk individuals in the plan. The more high risk people, the higher they are allowed to have their profit margin. Also, we can allow them to pay out dividends to sweeten the pot for investors. Institutional investors for things like pensions and such would snap up these stocks. Imagine a company with a guaranteed 4% profit per year with a 1% dividend (5% total profit) because they have a lot of high risk people in their insurance plan. They would have investors swooping in all over for this. People were buying treasuries when the payout was 0% a while back! People that bought a lot of the mortgage backed securities are institutional investors that got burned. They thought they were buying the least risky, AAA bonds available. Small guaranteed returns with no risk of loss. These same investors would be more than happy to buy up stock in an insurance company like one I mentioned. most of this is a rehash of what I already typed but I went ahead and re-wrote it to save you the trouble of looking back.
The government would tax away any excess over the amount allowed by their high risk pool. This money could be set aside for 5 years. So if the company is allowed 50 million in profits one year but makes 80 million, 30 million is taxed and placed into the pool. Within the next 5 years, if that company's profit is below the 50 million mark (like that company only makes a profit of 40 million the next year), they can pull some of the excess out of the pool to increase their profit. This will help guarantee profit margins for investors worried about risk.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Doubtfully but if you can show me some evidence that shows that the top 30% of the country consume more health care than the other 70% Ill agree with you.[/QUOTE]
http://www.randcompare.org/us-health-care-today/consumer-financial-risk
http://www.randcompare.org/sites/default/files/images/us_health_care_today/popups/hct_cfr_2b_sm.gif
Here's the first half of the argument where in the rich are paying less than their "fair" share. Your Cato thinks the above graph is a good thing. I'm assuming the percentage spent by those making < $20K is 0% because they're on welfare or they're thoseed bastards without any health insurance. Of course, they also need to expand this graph such as 70-80, 80-90, 90-100 and so on.
I need to try to find a graph on utilization of health care per income level, but google isn't cooperating yet.
...
To all,
I'm stumbling through this website: http://www.randcompare.org/us-health-care-today.
Any thoughts?
http://www.randcompare.org/us-health-care-today/consumer-financial-risk
http://www.randcompare.org/sites/default/files/images/us_health_care_today/popups/hct_cfr_2b_sm.gif
Here's the first half of the argument where in the rich are paying less than their "fair" share. Your Cato thinks the above graph is a good thing. I'm assuming the percentage spent by those making < $20K is 0% because they're on welfare or they're those
ed bastards without any health insurance. Of course, they also need to expand this graph such as 70-80, 80-90, 90-100 and so on. I need to try to find a graph on utilization of health care per income level, but google isn't cooperating yet.
...
To all,
I'm stumbling through this website: http://www.randcompare.org/us-health-care-today.
Any thoughts?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.randcompare.org/us-health-care-today/consumer-financial-risk
http://www.randcompare.org/sites/default/files/images/us_health_care_today/popups/hct_cfr_2b_sm.gif
Here's the first half of the argument where in the rich are paying less than their "fair" share. Your Cato thinks the above graph is a good thing. I'm assuming the percentage spent by those making < $20K is 0% because they're on welfare or they're thoseed bastards without any health insurance. Of course, they also need to expand this graph such as 70-80, 80-90, 90-100 and so on.
I need to try to find a graph on utilization of health care per income level, but google isn't cooperating yet.
...
To all,
I'm stumbling through this website: http://www.randcompare.org/us-health-care-today.
Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Someone making $70,000 pays $3290
Someone making $30,000 pays $2160
Yep really unfair, they make 50% more and they pay 50% more. Gasp what are we to do with those rich money grabbing bastards. Your chart looks pretty and outrageous but did you even do the math?
http://www.randcompare.org/sites/default/files/images/us_health_care_today/popups/hct_cfr_2b_sm.gif
Here's the first half of the argument where in the rich are paying less than their "fair" share. Your Cato thinks the above graph is a good thing. I'm assuming the percentage spent by those making < $20K is 0% because they're on welfare or they're those
ed bastards without any health insurance. Of course, they also need to expand this graph such as 70-80, 80-90, 90-100 and so on. I need to try to find a graph on utilization of health care per income level, but google isn't cooperating yet.
...
To all,
I'm stumbling through this website: http://www.randcompare.org/us-health-care-today.
Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Someone making $70,000 pays $3290
Someone making $30,000 pays $2160
Yep really unfair, they make 50% more and they pay 50% more. Gasp what are we to do with those rich money grabbing bastards. Your chart looks pretty and outrageous but did you even do the math?
bread's done