 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Yet another way "public option" hurts the economy... |
|
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Michael Coburn... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:43:48 -0700, tg wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 11:32Â am, AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:58Â pm, hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:11:57 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Another lie, clearly the people who do not know what it is are
those who are against it based on the number of lies they are
throwing around, you know, just like you.
[/quote]
So don't just respond like a dummy and broadcast a lying pig headline.
Change the subject line to reflect the truth or to reflect the actual
topic. The rightarded lie machine operates on fake headlines and the
spamming of those headlines.
[quote]Not really. =A0When people hear the truth--that it is a
government run money-pit that will raise their taxes, reduce
choice, and start the path to "single payer" they realize what a
bad idea it is.
[/quote]
This rightarded flame bait has nothing to do with "Re: Yet another way
"public option" hurts the economy"
[quote]for some reason that clearly escapes you every developed
industrialized country in the world has socialized medicine and
they all rate better health care systems than we do.- Hide quoted
text -
[/quote]
Yet you fall for the bait and switch and don't change the subject line to
something like "Liars lie about cost of American health care *AGAIN*.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:08 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
<<<<<<<<<< additional lying deleted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[quote]If you want insurance JUST BUY IT. I mean, that is a big part of
Obamacare anyways. And we can do that without a public option most
people don't want when they know what it really means. And without the
immorality of a governmnet trying to run private companies out of
business.
[/quote]
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/09/
i_want_to_believe_in_the_public_option_a_polling_breakdown_with_an_eye_toward_ufos.php
"more Americans believe in UFOs than oppose the public option."
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:58:05 -0700, tg wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 12:50Â pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:43Â pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Here is an article on wait times in Canada. Â Best is 15 weeks. Â NO
THANKS-NO PUBLIC OPTION!
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html
Do you have some data on waiting times for people who can't get
treatment because they don't have insurance?
There is no "waiting time" beacause you don't have insurance. Â If you
can pay you can be treated right away. Â If it is an emergency they are
required to treat you.
But if you are comparing waiting times, you have to compare waiting
times for everyone. So the US would have 'infinite' waiting times, once
you average it out. Well, maybe not infinite, since those people will
just die, but the point is the same.
On the other hand, for Canadian waiting times, you would have to include
those Canadians who don't use the system.
-tg
[/quote]
Please edit the Subject line as opposed to helping the rightrarded liars
to spam their total lies in the headlines.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<< falsely attributed crap deleted >>>>>>>>>>
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Econotron... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"darwinist" <darwinist at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:daf28d51-8ce5-4ffb-9bdd-5535a85d8b47 at (no spam) 2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 2:08 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business, here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock, buy
commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are way
more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of billions of
capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD,
SOCIALIST IDEA.
[/quote]
If we're talking purely economic effects: can you imagine how much
better off an economy would be if half of its bankruptcies could be
prevented. About 60% of bankruptcies in America are caused by medical
bills.
That's retarded.
===================================================================
Not all of us believe that preventing bankruptcies is good for the economy
and society in general. Also, 60% figure *involves* medical bills, but not
*caused* by them exclusively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, to prevent people dying on the street outside the hospital,
the law says that emergency rooms in america can't deny someone
treatment, whether or not they've got insurance; whether or not they
can pay. So they get treated and the hospital has to pass the cost on
to paying customers. People who can pay for it, therefore, are paying
for people who can't. They're not just paying more than the people
with no insurance, they're paying for all of the emergency treatment
for the people who can't afford it.
That's a ridiculous caricature of "free market" capitalism.
===================================================================
It is true that the HC can not entirely fit into the free market scheme,
because of the society's willingness to provide critical medical help to
anybody who needs it. So, the attempts to recover part of the cost are
understandable. But this proposal's coercive way of doing it is
anti-American; and to force businesses to provide insurance?! We need to
separate HC delivery from a workplace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these people with no coverage could afford preventative care and
treatment, they might never end up at the emergency room and the total
cost of their care could be a lot lower.
What kind of a system are you sticking up for, exactly?
One that damages the economy by creating bankruptices.
One that overcharges people who can afford to pay, even more than a
socialist system would.
One where people who need healthcare the most find it hardest to get
coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
===================================================================
This is a long topic, but we do not need a system, which greatly increases
government control over the economy and bankrupts the nation. Far better
option is to do nothing. As to the pre-existing conditions, unless they are
birth defects, the sufferers acquired them while being uninsured. The idea
of insurance is to protect against future incidents, not the past ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why are you sticking up for it? A public option doesn't preclude
free-market competition. There are lots of private insurance companies
here in "bad, socialist" Australia. No could accuse us of lagging
behind in research or innovation, either.
===================================================================
The very intensions of the current proponents are suspect. And yes, the way
it is presented, the public option will destroy private insurance through
the government's regulatory and taxing powers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if none of the above were true, your original point is still
false. Large government-owned funds (insurance or otherwise) also
invest in the market in order to get a decent rate of return on the
money before it's spent.
===================================================================
Both points are not very relevant :-)
e |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| darwinist... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:28 am, "Econotron" <nore... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"darwinist" <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:daf28d51-8ce5-4ffb-9bdd-5535a85d8b47 at (no spam) 2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 2:08 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business, here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock, buy
commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are way
more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of billions of
capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD,
SOCIALIST IDEA.
If we're talking purely economic effects: can you imagine how much
better off an economy would be if half of its bankruptcies could be
prevented. About 60% of bankruptcies in America are caused by medical
bills.
That's retarded.
==================================================================
Not all of us believe that preventing bankruptcies is good for the economy
and society in general. Also, 60% figure *involves* medical bills, but not
*caused* by them exclusively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, to prevent people dying on the street outside the hospital,
the law says that emergency rooms in america can't deny someone
treatment, whether or not they've got insurance; whether or not they
can pay. So they get treated and the hospital has to pass the cost on
to paying customers. People who can pay for it, therefore, are paying
for people who can't. They're not just paying more than the people
with no insurance, they're paying for all of the emergency treatment
for the people who can't afford it.
That's a ridiculous caricature of "free market" capitalism.
==================================================================
It is true that the HC can not entirely fit into the free market scheme,
because of the society's willingness to provide critical medical help to
anybody who needs it. So, the attempts to recover part of the cost are
understandable. But this proposal's coercive way of doing it is
anti-American; and to force businesses to provide insurance?! We need to
separate HC delivery from a workplace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these people with no coverage could afford preventative care and
treatment, they might never end up at the emergency room and the total
cost of their care could be a lot lower.
What kind of a system are you sticking up for, exactly?
One that damages the economy by creating bankruptices.
One that overcharges people who can afford to pay, even more than a
socialist system would.
One where people who need healthcare the most find it hardest to get
coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
==================================================================
This is a long topic, but we do not need a system, which greatly increases
government control over the economy and bankrupts the nation. Far better
option is to do nothing.
[/quote]
What makes you think it will bankrupt the nation? With the current
system, America spends more per capita on healthcare than any other
country.
[quote]As to the pre-existing conditions, unless they are
birth defects, the sufferers acquired them while being uninsured. The idea
of insurance is to protect against future incidents, not the past ones.
[/quote]
Unless you have a time machine, it's hard to see how anyone could
advocate protection against past incidents. The point of insurance is
to moderate the cost of unpredictable events, by averaging it over a
large pool of people, all with different levels of risk. The idea of
universal insurance - in healthcare - is to prevent people from being
unnecessarily doomed to death or bankruptcy.
[quote]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why are you sticking up for it? A public option doesn't preclude
free-market competition. There are lots of private insurance companies
here in "bad, socialist" Australia. No could accuse us of lagging
behind in research or innovation, either.
==================================================================
The very intensions of the current proponents are suspect. And yes, the way
it is presented, the public option will destroy private insurance through
the government's regulatory and taxing powers.
[/quote]
That's highly dubious. If you look at countries which have a public
option you will find that it typically covers basic and necessary
care, and that private insurance provides more choice and extras. This
way basic cover - which everyone needs - is provided more broadly and
efficiently by a large-scale not-for-profit organisation (owned by the
government), and market competition takes care of other things.
I must say I'm not familiar with the specifics of the plan. I was
responding to the mistaken claims of the original poster that having a
public option would remove its share of insurance money from the
economy. This is not true for any kind of public option.
[quote]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if none of the above were true, your original point is still
false. Large government-owned funds (insurance or otherwise) also
invest in the market in order to get a decent rate of return on the
money before it's spent.
==================================================================
Both points are not very relevant :-)
e[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Galt... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
darwinist wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:28 am, "Econotron" <nore... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
"darwinist" <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:daf28d51-8ce5-4ffb-9bdd-5535a85d8b47 at (no spam) 2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 2:08 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business, here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock, buy
commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are way
more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of billions of
capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD,
SOCIALIST IDEA.
If we're talking purely economic effects: can you imagine how much
better off an economy would be if half of its bankruptcies could be
prevented. About 60% of bankruptcies in America are caused by medical
bills.
That's retarded.
===================================================================
Not all of us believe that preventing bankruptcies is good for the economy
and society in general. Also, 60% figure *involves* medical bills, but not
*caused* by them exclusively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, to prevent people dying on the street outside the hospital,
the law says that emergency rooms in america can't deny someone
treatment, whether or not they've got insurance; whether or not they
can pay. So they get treated and the hospital has to pass the cost on
to paying customers. People who can pay for it, therefore, are paying
for people who can't. They're not just paying more than the people
with no insurance, they're paying for all of the emergency treatment
for the people who can't afford it.
That's a ridiculous caricature of "free market" capitalism.
===================================================================
It is true that the HC can not entirely fit into the free market scheme,
because of the society's willingness to provide critical medical help to
anybody who needs it. So, the attempts to recover part of the cost are
understandable. But this proposal's coercive way of doing it is
anti-American; and to force businesses to provide insurance?! We need to
separate HC delivery from a workplace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these people with no coverage could afford preventative care and
treatment, they might never end up at the emergency room and the total
cost of their care could be a lot lower.
What kind of a system are you sticking up for, exactly?
One that damages the economy by creating bankruptices.
One that overcharges people who can afford to pay, even more than a
socialist system would.
One where people who need healthcare the most find it hardest to get
coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
===================================================================
This is a long topic, but we do not need a system, which greatly increases
government control over the economy and bankrupts the nation. Far better
option is to do nothing.
What makes you think it will bankrupt the nation? With the current
system, America spends more per capita on healthcare than any other
country.
[/quote]
We do, but the bills as being discussed do nothing to address the
inefficiencies that cause this. The spending per capital on healthcare
will increase unless the factors related to the cost curve are
addressed, and changes to those factors are opposed by some very
powerful lobbies.
[quote]
As to the pre-existing conditions, unless they are
birth defects, the sufferers acquired them while being uninsured. The idea
of insurance is to protect against future incidents, not the past ones.
Unless you have a time machine, it's hard to see how anyone could
advocate protection against past incidents. The point of insurance is
to moderate the cost of unpredictable events, by averaging it over a
large pool of people, all with different levels of risk. The idea of
universal insurance - in healthcare - is to prevent people from being
unnecessarily doomed to death or bankruptcy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why are you sticking up for it? A public option doesn't preclude
free-market competition. There are lots of private insurance companies
here in "bad, socialist" Australia. No could accuse us of lagging
behind in research or innovation, either.
===================================================================
The very intensions of the current proponents are suspect. And yes, the way
it is presented, the public option will destroy private insurance through
the government's regulatory and taxing powers.
That's highly dubious. If you look at countries which have a public
option you will find that it typically covers basic and necessary
care, and that private insurance provides more choice and extras. This
way basic cover - which everyone needs - is provided more broadly and
efficiently by a large-scale not-for-profit organisation (owned by the
government), and market competition takes care of other things.
[/quote]
True, but that does not appear to be the case for what's being proposed
in these plans. Prima facie, the only way you get to 1900 pages of
legislation is if you're intentionally writing in that this-and-that
condition must be specifically covered, no matter how obscure the
condition.
JG
[quote]
I must say I'm not familiar with the specifics of the plan. I was
responding to the mistaken claims of the original poster that having a
public option would remove its share of insurance money from the
economy. This is not true for any kind of public option.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if none of the above were true, your original point is still
false. Large government-owned funds (insurance or otherwise) also
invest in the market in order to get a decent rate of return on the
money before it's spent.
===================================================================
Both points are not very relevant :-)
e[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:08 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
<srduffy1126 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 12:43=A0pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Here is an article on wait times in Canada. =A0Best is 15 weeks. =A0NO
THANKS-NO PUBLIC OPTION!
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html
Do you have some data on waiting times for people who can't get
treatment because they don't have insurance?
There is no "waiting time" beacause you don't have insurance. If you
can pay you can be treated right away. If it is an emergency they are
required to treat you.
If you want insurance JUST BUY IT. I mean, that is a big part of
Obamacare anyways. And we can do that without a public option most
people don't want when they know what it really means. And without
the immorality of a governmnet trying to run private companies out of
business.
[/quote]
You're a pathetic joke. The whole problem is millions of working
poor, most with kids, CAN'T AFFORD insurance. Get a clue, moron, this
is not that hard to figure out. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Galt wrote
[quote]darwinist wrote
Econotron <nore... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
darwinist <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral
for government to try to run private companies out of business,
here is another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just
today. Hard to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and
instead these people are forced into the public "option" like many
will be. That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock,
buy commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are
way more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of
billions of capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A
BAD, SOCIALIST IDEA.
If we're talking purely economic effects: can you imagine how much
better off an economy would be if half of its bankruptcies could be
prevented. About 60% of bankruptcies in America are caused by
medical bills.
That's retarded.
===================================================================
Not all of us believe that preventing bankruptcies is good for the
economy and society in general. Also, 60% figure *involves* medical
bills, but not *caused* by them exclusively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, to prevent people dying on the street outside the
hospital, the law says that emergency rooms in america can't deny someone
treatment, whether or not they've got insurance; whether or not they
can pay. So they get treated and the hospital has to pass the cost
on to paying customers. People who can pay for it, therefore, are
paying for people who can't. They're not just paying more than the people
with no insurance, they're paying for all of the emergency treatment
for the people who can't afford it.
That's a ridiculous caricature of "free market" capitalism.
===================================================================
It is true that the HC can not entirely fit into the free market
scheme, because of the society's willingness to provide critical
medical help to anybody who needs it. So, the attempts to recover
part of the cost are understandable. But this proposal's coercive
way of doing it is anti-American; and to force businesses to
provide insurance?! We need to separate HC delivery from a
workplace. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these people with no coverage could afford preventative care and
treatment, they might never end up at the emergency room and the
total cost of their care could be a lot lower.
What kind of a system are you sticking up for, exactly?
One that damages the economy by creating bankruptices.
One that overcharges people who can afford to pay, even more than a
socialist system would.
One where people who need healthcare the most find it hardest to get
coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
===================================================================
This is a long topic, but we do not need a system, which greatly
increases government control over the economy and bankrupts the
nation. Far better option is to do nothing.
What makes you think it will bankrupt the nation? With the current system, America spends more per capita on
healthcare than any other country.
We do, but the bills as being discussed do nothing to address the inefficiencies that cause this.
[/quote]
Nothing is overstating it, little, certainly.
Competition from a govt operation that doesnt need to make a
profit could well help to drive down the profits that the private
insurance system makes and that will have some effect on costs.
[quote]The spending per capital on healthcare will increase
[/quote]
Not necessarily.
[quote]unless the factors related to the cost curve are addressed,
[/quote]
Yes, its time to toss the insurance system in the bin for protection against
bankruptcy or severe financial distress caused by a severe medical problem.
[quote]and changes to those factors are opposed by some very powerful lobbies.
[/quote]
Yes, but thats been true in every other modern first and
second world county thats moved to fix that problem, and
was in the US with medicare too, and it all happened anyway.
[quote]As to the pre-existing conditions, unless they are
birth defects, the sufferers acquired them while being uninsured.
The idea of insurance is to protect against future incidents, not
the past ones.
Unless you have a time machine, it's hard to see how anyone could
advocate protection against past incidents. The point of insurance is
to moderate the cost of unpredictable events, by averaging it over a
large pool of people, all with different levels of risk. The idea of
universal insurance - in healthcare - is to prevent people from being
unnecessarily doomed to death or bankruptcy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why are you sticking up for it? A public option doesn't preclude
free-market competition. There are lots of private insurance
companies here in "bad, socialist" Australia. No could accuse us of
lagging behind in research or innovation, either.
===================================================================
The very intensions of the current proponents are suspect. And yes,
the way it is presented, the public option will destroy private
insurance through the government's regulatory and taxing powers.
That's highly dubious. If you look at countries which have a public
option you will find that it typically covers basic and necessary
care, and that private insurance provides more choice and extras.
This way basic cover - which everyone needs - is provided more
broadly and efficiently by a large-scale not-for-profit organisation
(owned by the government), and market competition takes care of
other things.
True, but that does not appear to be the case for what's being
proposed in these plans. Prima facie, the only way you get to 1900 pages of legislation is if you're intentionally
writing in that
this-and-that condition must be specifically covered, no matter how obscure the condition.
[/quote]
Mindlessly superficial. The current legislation doesnt even attempt to do that.
[quote]I must say I'm not familiar with the specifics of the plan. I was
responding to the mistaken claims of the original poster that having
a public option would remove its share of insurance money from the
economy. This is not true for any kind of public option.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if none of the above were true, your original point is still
false. Large government-owned funds (insurance or otherwise) also
invest in the market in order to get a decent rate of return on the
money before it's spent.
===================================================================
Both points are not very relevant :-)
e[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Econotron... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"darwinist" <darwinist at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5aa54c5-191d-47fa-8453-55d9840a6861 at (no spam) 12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:28 am, "Econotron" <nore... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"darwinist" <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:daf28d51-8ce5-4ffb-9bdd-5535a85d8b47 at (no spam) 2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 2:08 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business, here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock, buy
commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are way
more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of billions of
capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD,
SOCIALIST IDEA.
If we're talking purely economic effects: can you imagine how much
better off an economy would be if half of its bankruptcies could be
prevented. About 60% of bankruptcies in America are caused by medical
bills.
That's retarded.
===================================================================
Not all of us believe that preventing bankruptcies is good for the economy
and society in general. Also, 60% figure *involves* medical bills, but not
*caused* by them exclusively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, to prevent people dying on the street outside the hospital,
the law says that emergency rooms in america can't deny someone
treatment, whether or not they've got insurance; whether or not they
can pay. So they get treated and the hospital has to pass the cost on
to paying customers. People who can pay for it, therefore, are paying
for people who can't. They're not just paying more than the people
with no insurance, they're paying for all of the emergency treatment
for the people who can't afford it.
That's a ridiculous caricature of "free market" capitalism.
===================================================================
It is true that the HC can not entirely fit into the free market scheme,
because of the society's willingness to provide critical medical help to
anybody who needs it. So, the attempts to recover part of the cost are
understandable. But this proposal's coercive way of doing it is
anti-American; and to force businesses to provide insurance?! We need to
separate HC delivery from a workplace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these people with no coverage could afford preventative care and
treatment, they might never end up at the emergency room and the total
cost of their care could be a lot lower.
What kind of a system are you sticking up for, exactly?
One that damages the economy by creating bankruptices.
One that overcharges people who can afford to pay, even more than a
socialist system would.
One where people who need healthcare the most find it hardest to get
coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
===================================================================
This is a long topic, but we do not need a system, which greatly increases
government control over the economy and bankrupts the nation. Far better
option is to do nothing.
[/quote]
What makes you think it will bankrupt the nation? With the current
system, America spends more per capita on healthcare than any other
country.
[quote]As to the pre-existing conditions, unless they are
birth defects, the sufferers acquired them while being uninsured. The idea
of insurance is to protect against future incidents, not the past ones.
[/quote]
Unless you have a time machine, it's hard to see how anyone could
advocate protection against past incidents. The point of insurance is
to moderate the cost of unpredictable events, by averaging it over a
large pool of people, all with different levels of risk. The idea of
universal insurance - in healthcare - is to prevent people from being
unnecessarily doomed to death or bankruptcy.
[quote]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why are you sticking up for it? A public option doesn't preclude
free-market competition. There are lots of private insurance companies
here in "bad, socialist" Australia. No could accuse us of lagging
behind in research or innovation, either.
===================================================================
The very intensions of the current proponents are suspect. And yes, the
way
it is presented, the public option will destroy private insurance through
the government's regulatory and taxing powers.
[/quote]
That's highly dubious. If you look at countries which have a public
option you will find that it typically covers basic and necessary
care, and that private insurance provides more choice and extras. This
way basic cover - which everyone needs - is provided more broadly and
efficiently by a large-scale not-for-profit organisation (owned by the
government), and market competition takes care of other things.
I must say I'm not familiar with the specifics of the plan. I was
responding to the mistaken claims of the original poster that having a
public option would remove its share of insurance money from the
economy. This is not true for any kind of public option.
[snip]
===================================================================
Such multi-tier system is what I personally prefer, however it is not what
the current bill has in mind. Otherwise, it would have emphasized a
complementary nature of the public option, but instead they keep talking
about increased competition with the private insurance.
e.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 9:56 am, hal wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:08 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:43=A0pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Here is an article on wait times in Canada. =A0Best is 15 weeks. =A0NO
THANKS-NO PUBLIC OPTION!
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html
Do you have some data on waiting times for people who can't get
treatment because they don't have insurance?
There is no "waiting time" beacause you don't have insurance. If you
can pay you can be treated right away. If it is an emergency they are
required to treat you.
If you want insurance JUST BUY IT. I mean, that is a big part of
Obamacare anyways. And we can do that without a public option most
people don't want when they know what it really means. And without
the immorality of a governmnet trying to run private companies out of
business.
You're a pathetic joke. The whole problem is millions of working
poor, most with kids, CAN'T AFFORD insurance. Get a clue, moron, this
is not that hard to figure out.- Hide quoted text -
[/quote]
Tell Obama that then, he plans a mandate that you buy coverage, want
it or not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:32 am
|
|