On Aug 28, 2:21*am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2009-08-28, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:05:58 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> ><tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 2009-08-28, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:13:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> >>><tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On 2009-08-27, Dave <now...@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 thosein
> >>>>> 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 decisionwe
> >>>>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?

Uh, Medicare's overhead is 3% while private insurance companies run
around 15%.

> Your 'successful' cash for clunkers program seems to be running around
> 33% overhead.http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...ita-doan-cash/

Great, someone who believes in Fox News and Santa Claus.