Re: Clinton unveils socialist medical plan

Foobar wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:09 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Igor The Terrible" <igor_the_terri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:1190791498.909021.134600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Sep 24, 3:14 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Igor The Terrible" <igor_the_terri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:1190468608.156799.44360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 20, 1:32 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 24, 3:14 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Igor The Terrible" <igor_the_terri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in Taxpayers AND your insurance company...who charges you later
in higher premiums
So the taxpayers get nailed at least twice...
Yeah.
You don't need a PhD. in Astrophysics to figure out that the
larger the group the more diluted the risk is.
Well, true. BUT, it's what you do in the way of managing the funds
that comes into play. A monopsony (single payer system) would
create instant competition on the caregiver side and would force
them to unload their excesses.

Isn't "managing funds" the KEY CORE issue? I'm not a rocket
scientist but
if everybody puts a percentage into ONE POOL, and we don't borrow
from that
pool, and we ONLY pay for actual healthcare from that pool aren't
there ONLY
three possibilities?

1) We run out of money so we goose the percentage up.
2) We break even so we tweak the percentage a wee bit to create a
little
surplus.
3) We have a surplus so we leave our taxes as they were.

Do mean basic human needs that basic humans who are responsible
would be responsible for?
That's where this begins. WHO is responsible for providing these
basic human needs? The basic human, the State, the Employer, the
Federal gov't.??
We need a single entity. I think the quickest fix would be for the
government to spin off Medicare and Medicaid into the private
sector, gut both agencies, merge them but keep them as separate
departments, and build a cost effective system from the ground up.

That's not necessarily a bad starting point. We'll need to provide
some
basic healthcare to poor people, and yet a completely different
healthcare
to retired people.

Democrats woul have us believe that as if by magic and all of a
sudden its
the Federal gov'ts responsibility.
They may be right; but I'd be damned if I'd let the idiots manage
it.

Well, for example, Hitlary's ideas begin AFTER the assumption that
healthcare is a "right."

Time out! Let's discuss that BEFORE we assume it.

I don't trust the Democrats to manage anything. I don't trust the
Democrats
to manage just the paper plates and napkins at a BBQ.

That's simply impossible. Even if the exact cost employees are
currently
paying was switched to a tax on their income there would still be
an additionl cost for the (alleged) 47 million who are paying
nothing.
Not really, because they would be paying as well. It could be
deducted like FICA, income tax, etc... In other words, everyone
would be paying. So the 47 million would no longer be the
statistic we are currently dealing with.

I agree that the (alleged) 47 million would cease to be a statistic
but if
they can't afford the cheap healthcare available now how can they
afford
some 'universal' proposed healthcare?

Sure, they would be paying, as a paycheck deduction, but it would
likely be
less than the cost of the healthcare they'd then be receiving.

The hope is that taxpayers at the other end, paying a higher
percentage on
their income, would make up the difference. For maybe the next 20
years
that's not a bad assumption.

No. It's the truth. ANY candidates who promises "free" health
care is a goddamed liar and is out scamming for votes, PERIOD.
That's a fact. Well, ALMOST a fact. The Dems are promising free
healthcare
to the (alleged) 47 million that don't have it PAID FOR by tax
increases on
ONLY higher income people.
Again, I still see this as an empty promise for the pieces of ***
to con people into voting for them. I'll tell you right now, every
model out there is either going to fail, put us further in the
hole, or they are going to tax the *** out of us. I see all three
coming into play. In a nutshell, we can't afford such a model.
Not with a poorly managed war going on, Bush's tax cuts, and all
the budget and trade deficits, the interest liability on our
skyrocketing debt, and a dollar sinking like a lead balloon...etc.

I'm going to take a shot at convincing you that you're somewhat
wrong. (Of
course the Dems promise of free healthcare is a scam for votes...
You
couldn't be more correct on that!)

Freeze the picture as we have it now. The unemployed are getting
free (to
them) healthcare and we're absorbing that cost. Retireds are
getting their
piece and we're affording that. The working NOT-poor are affording
their
healthcare. The (alleged) 47 million working poor are the ones not
in the
game.

So, if we ban prescription drug advertising we prevent drug
manufacturers
from spending $500 million per year per drug. That HAS to
eventually result
in cheaper drugs.

If we isolate malpractice insurance from all other healthcare
insurance then
ONLY that fund pool is liable for malpractice jury awards. That HAS
to
eventually result in cheaper doctor visits, because it HAS to result
in
cheaper malpractice insurance premiums, which HAS to result in some
competition among doctors.

So far, we haven't increased anybody's taxes. Have we lowered
healthcare
costs to pull in some of the (alleged) 47 million? I dunno. But
certainly
we've reduced healthcare costs.

Now, getting more aggressive. If we have ONE big freaking bank
account
where ALL of our healthcare payroll deductions go, and will pass an
Amendment to the Constitution prohibitiing any Democrat from ever
going near
it, forever, then can begin to get a handle on the actual costs. Is
that
one big bank account managed by a gov't agency or by a non-profit?
I dunno.

It doesn't have to be a gargantuan agency/company.

<big snip here to keep article from becoming a novel>
Everything you said about insurance I could not agree with more.
They are a cancer on the free market Their focus is on keeping
shareholders happy with generous dividends and capital appreciation.
The make money by skyrocketing premiums and paying out as little as
they can.
Hey, I feel your pain. $50k is nothing to sneeze at. But what
really sucks is, even if you never collect a claim from them since
day one...they simply reward you with higher premiums. This is the
ugly side of capitalism. This is one of the primary reasons I have
such strong opposition to it when it come to human life.

Well, unlike Socialism and especially Communism, Capitalism requires
constant maintenance. Capitalism fails without enough greed and
fails when
there is too much greed. Its a fantasy to think we can find and
then keep
the balance. That's why we have to maintain the pendulum and today
we're
seeing the result of too much greed.

Personally, I want to see ALL insurance go to hell. Mostly because
it is expensive and works against the very people who pay for it.
Health care can get its revenues from the state, federal
government, or a combination of the two. Auto/Boat/Aircraft
coverage...pay for it at the pump. Life insurance can pretty much
be left as is unless it tries to scam an individual or a group of
them. The courts can fix that. Property insurance can be done in
the same manner is health insurance. Anyone who lives in Florida
anywhere near the coast would appreciate a breather for the severe
case of hemorrhoids insurance companies are giving people who live
on the coast or anywhere near it.

I don't live near the coast in Florida, I live ON the coast in
Clearwater.
My HO premium would scare the hair off a junkyard dog. What's worse
is my
deductible is astronomical as well. Which means I effectively ONLY
have
catastrophic coverage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, if we ban prescription drug advertising we prevent drug
manufacturers
from spending $500 million per year per drug. That HAS to
eventually result
in cheaper drugs

I agree. Banning Cigarette advertising certainly worked well :-(


Cigarette advertising isn't banned...except on TV.


.