On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:05:58 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2009-08-28, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:13:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2009-08-27, Dave <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You make some good points. The problem I have with a government run health
>>>> care system is...if it comes to that, there will be no individual choice
>>>> left. Right now, the private insurance companies are terrible. But they
>>>> are held (slightly) in check by the fact that there are more than one of
>>>> them. That is, they have to "compete", at least to a certain degree. Once
>>>> the government takes over, there is no need to "compete", and those in
>>>> charge of the new government run cluster-**** can be as evil as they want
>>>> to, as they don't answer to anybody anymore. While it's hard to imagine
>>>> that healthcare could be "worse" in the United States, it is GUARANTEED to
>>>> get worse (and a LOT worse) if the government gets involved at all. -Dave
>>>>
>>>The present problems are government created. They are in the tax code,
>>>regulation, medicare,insurance laws, etc and so on. The solution is
>>>less government interference, not more. If we get more, we might get a
>>>government system where by government gets a large degree of control
>>>over our lives. After all, since the government 'pays' for the
>>>healthcare it will then use that excuse to micromanage every decision we
>>>make, every risk we take. The more likely result will be that certain
>>>companies will make great profits while the rest get shut out. The
>>>government will act to lock in high prices for those who have influence.
>>>In essence form legalized cartels. From there government will then find
>>>a way to get the power to micromanage everyone somehow to get the best
>>>of both.
>>
>>
>> I think the present problem has little to do with gvt. It has
>> everything to do with our health care system being third party pays.
>
>Those two statements don't go together. The reason there is a third
>party system is because of the US federal tax code. In WW2 the federal
>government capped wages but allowed health insurance benefits and
>employers and employees got tax benefits from offering and taking them.
>That's how today's system started. So, yes, it has everything to do with
>the government.
>

That's just rationalizing to make the gvt the bogeyman. Even allowing
that it started that way, when it started it was not the money pit it
now is. The CURRENT problem is not due to gvt, it is due to it being
third party pays. Just like with a car warranty. When you know
something is covered under the warranty, with the repairs paid by the
third party, the owner doesn't really care what it costs and the
repair shop has no incentive to try and save the customer a nickel.
The ONLY one of the three parties with an immediate interest in
keeping costs down is the insurance company. That's to max their
profits and keep the policy affordable. Now move to health insurance,
where the bulk of the premium is paid not by the employee, but by the
employer, and none of the three parties (insured, insurer, health care
provider) has much incentive to keep costs down. the employer would
like costs to stay low, but they are not even in the decision chain on
what will be provided and for how much.

>> There is ZERO incentive for anyone with health coverage to try and
>> keep costs down.
>
>Do you really think 'free' healthcare paid by the government with money
>it takes from other people will convince people to watch their bills?

No. Why would anyone think that.

>HA! the only way government can keep costs down is to use either
>monopoly in health care or their monopoly on the legal use of violence
>to deny care where today's insurance can't do it because of law,
>lawsuit, or market pressure.

Gvt can keep costs down by creating a structure that doesn't have 15%
of the premiums going to overhead and admin and another 5 to 15% going
to profits. Other countries have gotten rid of the profit part and
reduced teh overhead to around 5%. Gvt could also limit lawsuits but
that's only 1.5% of costs so it's really not a big deal.