The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[LynahFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I don't disagree but you're playing damage control now and the only time such a phrase is used to denote that it's legal stealing.

Legal stealing is an oxymoron - if it's legal, it can't be stealing. I phrased it exactly how I meant to, and I'm standing behind my phrasing. How is that damage control? It's not my fault you jumped to a conclusion and found out you were wrong.

Back that up. How about a more recent article that directly states that it's their bureaucracy that adds the cost.

In other words, their own bloated system with different coverage, documentation, and regulations on all of it cause their high overhead.

And being cynical I would say they don't cut overhead because they can simply raise premiums and deny coverage.

Did you know that water is what makes rain wet? Of course bureaucracy is what makes it expensive. The important question is WHY there is so much bureaucracy. I still refuse to believe that a for-profit corporation is going out of its way to intentionally employ a bunch of bureaucrats that it could easily do without just out of the goodness of its heart so that those people have jobs. If they could fire them, they would. AND they would raise premiums and deny coverage. Why would they choose one or the other when they could do both?

You didn't read that did you? Canada's gov't system has an overhead of only 1.3% How does that compare to either of the private sectors or the US gov't one? Which also as noted above has increased overhead from working with private insurers.

Did I mis-use the numbers in any way? The US as a whole has a 31% problem, and private insurers only have an 11% problem, so somebody in the US has a problem that's even bigger than 31%. We should go after those guys first, and then worry about the private insurers after.

Oh of course we have to keep such and such in mind. You still haven't answered why we still haven't seen decreased costs.

Funny how with a vested interest in driving down costs because you have to treat someone, it hasn't happened. Why is that? Please don't avoid the question. Why under our private insurance system hasn't cost been driven down? Why do costs continue to go up. How many regulations are you going to blame this on?

Where have I argued that our current system should decrease costs? Only a complete fool would make that argument, because we have the empirical data that shows that the current system DOES NOT decrease costs. Are you claiming that the 40% of the market not covered by government programs is 100% responsible for these cost increases?

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Legal stealing is an oxymoron - if it's legal, it can't be stealing. I phrased it exactly how I meant to, and I'm standing behind my phrasing. How is that damage control? It's not my fault you jumped to a conclusion and found out you were wrong.

Now you're going on about semantics.

Did you know that water is what makes rain wet? Of course bureaucracy is what makes it expensive. The important question is WHY there is so much bureaucracy. I still refuse to believe that a for-profit corporation is going out of its way to intentionally employ a bunch of bureaucrats that it could easily do without just out of the goodness of its heart so that those people have jobs. If they could fire them, they would. AND they would raise premiums and deny coverage. Why would they choose one or the other when they could do both?

Again, care to back that up? Surely some insurance company has come up with something that shows how regulations are the cause of all of that.

Did I mis-use the numbers in any way? The US as a whole has a 31% problem, and private insurers only have an 11% problem, so somebody in the US has a problem that's even bigger than 31%. We should go after those guys first, and then worry about the private insurers after.

Yup, you ignored the one that showed that socialized medicine directly "empirically" had less overhead. And I also pointed out that the US Gov'ts overhead goes up because they have to deal with private insurance companies who's own regulations and policies (they have to deny coverage somehow) are causing higher overhead.

Where have I argued that our current system should decrease costs? Only a complete fool would make that argument, because we have the empirical data that shows that the current system DOES NOT decrease costs. Are you claiming that the 40% of the market not covered by government programs is 100% responsible for these cost increases?

I argued that single payer will reduce cost. You said no. I pointed to one reason why it would. You said no. This might a bit of a false dichotomy, but if you are against socializing health care, and use some of the usual republican talking points about regulation and how it rapes businesses. You come off as arguing that private for profit insurance is going to decrease costs. If I am wrong, please explain what your position is.

 

[Twitch Boy]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The FEMA offsetting cuts bill just got smacked down in the House. Get your popcorn ready.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I have a solution. The people with really costly / hopeless illnesses should be put in target zones, and then we can test our nuclear arsenal on them to make sure it still works. It gives our missiles something to do, and these people can die with dignity - as patriots. Win-win.

Oh and death via nuclear fireball is instantaneous, so there's no suffering, either. We can kill our criminals the same way.

Not a bad idea except most people want to live (prolong life) at any cost. At some point we'll need to stop the rate of medical inflation. almost everyone (including government) is going broke at the current rate. probably a good idea to "shelter" your assets from medical bankruptcy.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I have a solution. The people with really costly / hopeless illnesses should be put in target zones, and then we can test our nuclear arsenal on them to make sure it still works. It gives our missiles something to do, and these people can die with dignity - as patriots. Win-win.

Oh and death via nuclear fireball is instantaneous, so there's no suffering, either. We can kill our criminals the same way.

I have a brain tumor, neuropathy and am disabled. I'd rather live, but oh well. I don't want to be a drain on the American taxpayer (even though I was one for 20 years). Where's my nearest target zone?

 

[joecct]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I have a brain tumor, neuropathy and am disabled. I'd rather live, but oh well. I don't want to be a drain on the American taxpayer (even though I was one for 20 years). Where's my nearest target zone?

A Big Dig tunnel.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pC4ZOxpu2rs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

****! He's been dead 20 years this November. Where has the time gone?

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Unofan is a liberal partisan and Scooby carries water for Obama. This thread is nothing if not amusing.

That ranks right up there with me being in the KKK

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I have a brain tumor, neuropathy and am disabled. I'd rather live, but oh well. I don't want to be a drain on the American taxpayer (even though I was one for 20 years). Where's my nearest target zone?

Join the Mets. We're dead before Labor Day every year.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Because the people who need those services would have died. I agree that spending ridiculous sums of money to keep people alive for a few days or month is not worth it. But as the republicans argued so adamantly when the democrats tried to bring health care costs down, death panels are bad.


Then stop using roads or anything else that is paid for by the gov't and your tax dollars. We don't live in a vacuum, you don't live on your own private island. The cost of living in the US is taxes it's a social contract.


So you're fine with gov't spending if it directly benefits you? You realize why that's not a very good answer?


That would be called supply side economics, thanks for playing.


source

Simply put, private health insurance is always going to be more expensive than public options because the pool of people paying in is smaller. The larger the pool the easier it is to absorb costs.

I find it quite interesting that the top three are in dire financial straits right now though...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

That ranks right up there with me being in the KKK

Wait, you're not a member?

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Wait, you're not a member?

Not anymore...soooooooo political!!!

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I find it quite interesting that the top three are in dire financial straits right now though...

Not from healthcare. They also rank pretty high when they look at the health of the individuals (Well before Japan was radiated). SO better health, costs less to get that health. Hmmmm. Of course there are a bagillion other variables when looking at health but they achieve good things for less cash.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I argued that single payer will reduce cost. You said no. I pointed to one reason why it would. You said no. This might a bit of a false dichotomy, but if you are against socializing health care, and use some of the usual republican talking points about regulation and how it rapes businesses. You come off as arguing that private for profit insurance is going to decrease costs. If I am wrong, please explain what your position is.

Here's my position in a nutshell:

People want to live forever, and they want someone else to pay for it. It doesn't matter whether it's a private system (where other premium payers foot their bills) or a public system (where other taxpayers foot their bills). One system may or may not have less overhead than the other, but that's a 2nd order term when compared with the fundamental issue that people are consuming too much health care, and that everyone expects their doctor to have the latest (and most expensive) methods and machines. Cut the amount of care in half, and you automatically cut the overhead cost in half, too. 40 years ago, we were spending less than 8% of GDP on health care. Now we're at over 16%, and life expectancy has only gone up by about 6 years (71 to 77, not all of which can be attributed to spending more on health care - seat belt laws, better understanding of nutrition, etc). Is it really worth the cost? If your answer is "yes" then you shouldn't have any problems with the existing system - you already think we're getting good value for the money spent. Personally, I don't think it's worth it; I think we simply have to start denying care to people who cannot afford it. I'm completely agnostic on whether our system should be government run (with death panels doing the denying) or private (with hospitals allowed to refuse treatment to do the denying). I just don't believe that either system is fundamentally so much more efficient that the aggregate level of care provided would be significantly better or worse.

 

[pirate]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

OK, I can see what you mean. I do think the analogy is misleading, however, since there are times when you support taxation, whereas it's probably rare if ever that you would support the right of an employer to say "you have to work extra hours for no pay to make the company more productive or you're fired." A better analogy, I think, is an across the board pay cut because the company's expenses (whatever they are) have exceeded bookings -- but that actually happens all the time.

And a company should cut expenses when revenues are short. Of course the government doesn't do that. They just increase revenue...and increase expenses. And then they wonder why that didn't work.




On another point, comparing reported overhead costs in a government agency to a private company is like comparing apples to fish.

The healthcare (gov't only spends 2% on overhead) number alone tells anybody that has ever managed a budget with salaries, benefits, depreciation etc. that the government is not reporting its true overhead costs. But people repeat that figure because some partisan mouthpiece put it out there, fully knowing that A) it was misleading B) people will quote it until the end of time.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

But people repeat that figure because some partisan mouthpiece put it out there, fully knowing that A) it was misleading B) people will quote it until the end of time.

Sounds like the GOP platform.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Here's my position in a nutshell:

People want to live forever, and they want someone else to pay for it. It doesn't matter whether it's a private system (where other premium payers foot their bills) or a public system (where other taxpayers foot their bills). One system may or may not have less overhead than the other, but that's a 2nd order term when compared with the fundamental issue that people are consuming too much health care, and that everyone expects their doctor to have the latest (and most expensive) methods and machines. Cut the amount of care in half, and you automatically cut the overhead cost in half, too. 40 years ago, we were spending less than 8% of GDP on health care. Now we're at over 16%, and life expectancy has only gone up by about 6 years (71 to 77, not all of which can be attributed to spending more on health care - seat belt laws, better understanding of nutrition, etc). Is it really worth the cost? If your answer is "yes" then you shouldn't have any problems with the existing system - you already think we're getting good value for the money spent. Personally, I don't think it's worth it; I think we simply have to start denying care to people who cannot afford it. I'm completely agnostic on whether our system should be government run (with death panels doing the denying) or private (with hospitals allowed to refuse treatment to do the denying). I just don't believe that either system is fundamentally so much more efficient that the aggregate level of care provided would be significantly better or worse.

You make some good points. Really though, it's not even a matter of whether we cut medical care, it's when. We cut it sooner, and there's some chance of having some decent funding for seniors down the road and possibly even throwing a little money toward preventive care for younger folks. Kick the can down the road, as we typically do, and at some point there will have to be severe cuts and much less coverage available than there is now, especially for seniors. It's just the math of the thing.

 

[Carter]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If your answer is "yes" then you shouldn't have any problems with the existing system - you already think we're getting good value for the money spent. Personally, I don't think it's worth it; I think we simply have to start denying care to people who cannot afford it. I'm completely agnostic on whether our system should be government run (with death panels doing the denying) or private (with hospitals allowed to refuse treatment to do the denying). I just don't believe that either system is fundamentally so much more efficient that the aggregate level of care provided would be significantly better or worse.

I'd agree with you except for the highlighted bit. I just fundamentally don't believe that poor people are less entitled to medical care than wealthy people. If you drop that bit, and are perfectly happy saying no to the rich as well as to the poor, in effect no to everyone, then I'm onboard.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'd agree with you except for the highlighted bit. I just fundamentally don't believe that poor people are less entitled to medical care than wealthy people. If you drop that bit, and are perfectly happy saying no to the rich as well as to the poor, in effect no to everyone, then I'm onboard.

It would never work that way. Rich people can afford to pay the bill so they always have and always will get more and better medical care.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I had to read this then come back because it was hard to deal with the wall o' derp in one sitting.

Here's my position in a nutshell:

People want to live forever, and they want someone else to pay for it. It doesn't matter whether it's a private system (where other premium payers foot their bills) or a public system (where other taxpayers foot their bills).

People want to live forever? Hmm, people want to live, forever is really pushing it unless you include the fundies who think that once they die they live forever. But they only want someone else to pay for it? Ugn my brain. Do you not realize that paying into insurance systems means that you are paying for it? You put your money into a pot so that when you or someone else might need the service it will be there. The cost is shared over a larger base so it's cheaper for everyone. It creates certainty and means that people aren't dying from easily curable diseases or that they aren't being wrecked financially paying for it out of pocket. (Which is always really productive) Oh but they wouldn't be wrecked financially in your system because they would just die and since they would be turned away at the door they wouldn't incur anything other than disposal costs. Like Ron Paul's campaign manager who died for the cause of liberty.

Cut the amount of care in half, and you automatically cut the overhead cost in half, too.

Prove it. (Have you provided even one resource to back up your claims yet?)

40 years ago, we were spending less than 8% of GDP on health care. Now we're at over 16%, and life expectancy has only gone up by about 6 years (71 to 77, not all of which can be attributed to spending more on health care - seat belt laws, better understanding of nutrition, etc).

Understanding of nutrition and educating people on it is part of health care.

Is it really worth the cost? If your answer is "yes" then you shouldn't have any problems with the existing system - you already think we're getting good value for the money spent.

No, the current system is for profit and is paying a large chunk just to deal with their own created bureaucracy. It's not good value for the money spent and they often decline to cover what they were supposed to.

Personally, I don't think it's worth it; I think we simply have to start denying care to people who cannot afford it. I'm completely agnostic on whether our system should be government run (with death panels doing the denying) or private (with hospitals allowed to refuse treatment to do the denying). I just don't believe that either system is fundamentally so much more efficient that the aggregate level of care provided would be significantly better or worse.

The value of having health care for our society is not just that people can go a doctor. (or just a safety net so you aren't living on the street,) It's that the level of health for everyone is higher. We don't have to worry about things like people dying in mass from the flu. Or living in squalor in some hellhole. This is a cooperative society. Your level of comfort within it is based off everyone elses in some small or big way.

Your post epitomizes the I got mine **** you attitude. You are a wretched human being and you should go live on the libertarian island. See how that works out for you.

But I could be wrong, so why don't you point to a successful country that follows your philosophy of denying care and no safety nets like emergency rooms. (Specifically ones that will turn away people for not being able to pay)

 

[pirate]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Sounds like the GOP platform.

No, it sounds like both...you've been conditioned not to listen as critically to one side as you do the other.

Similar claims to "my party doesn't lie"

my favorite pro wrestler is for real, the other guys are faking

my soccer team doesn't dive

my kids would never do something like that

my lawyer is fair and only concerned about justice, the other guy's lawyer is a money grubbing ambulance chaser

my college football team is the one that doesn't cheat