On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:21:56 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2009-08-28, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>No. It's how we ended up with 'health insurance' that covered even the
>basics being employer provided.
>
>> 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.
>
>The government, through medicare and other programs controls an enormous
>percentage of the healthcare market. Somehwhere around 50% give or take
>a little. I've heard 47-51%.
>
>>>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.
>
>Then costs will not be controlled. It will have the same problem that
>you say is today's problem.
>
>>>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.
>
>LOL. What in the US federal government runs as lean as 15% overhead?
>Your 'successful' cash for clunkers program seems to be running around
>33% overhead.
>http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...ita-doan-cash/
>
>
>

that's nothing but wild speculation by some former gvt employee and
current whacked out right winger.