Honda Car Forum

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:37:46 -0400, "Dave" <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote:

>
>>
>> I try to avoid these off topic discussions, but I have to throw in my two
>> cents worth here...
>>
>> The US already has a National Health Care System, a private / goverment /
>> no care system. It is the most expensive, most inefficient, and most
>> unfair in the developed world. If our current National Health Care System
>> had the best care, I suppose it could be excused, but by most measures, it
>> is a failure. We have the highest death rate among babies in the developed
>> world, we have the lowest life expectancies in the developed world, and we
>> have the highest percentage of uncovered people in the developed world.
>>
>> If you are very rich or running an insurance compnay our current National
>> Health Care System is terrific. If you are very poor, you probably can get
>> treatment for injuries but no preventive care. If you are in the middle,
>> you are paying through the nose for mediocre care.
>>
>> I often hear people rant about how they don't want government burecrats
>> making health care choices for them. OK I can see this, but a lot of these
>> same people are willing to let Health Insurance Industry Burecrats make
>> those decisions for them. I fail to see the difference. If anything, I'd
>> rather have governement burecrats making the decisions.
>>
>> I often hear people rant that they don't want the government rationing
>> health care, but many of these same people have their care rationed by the
>> Heath Insurance Industry.
>>
>> I often hear people rant that they don't want the government imposing new
>> taxes but these same people are paying directly (or indirectly through
>> their employers) extremely high premiums for mediocre care.
>>
>> I have a hard time understanding all the outrage against a goverment
>> administered National Health Care System. I can't see it being any worse
>> that our Current Government / Insurance Industry / Drug Company dominated
>> system. Do you really think the people running Blue Cross / Blue Shield;
>> Cigna; GSK, etc., etc. have your best intrest at heart?
>
>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


I don't see the "competition" you seem to think exists. My "company",
the state gvt, offers several health care options but they are all
essentially the same and they all cost exactly the same. The only
thing I really get to choose is to see if my current doctors are in a
particular companies network. That's it, that's the only "choice" I'm
making. I would suspect private companies that offer health care do
the same, they look for the cheapest thing they can find and then the
employees take it or leave it... you call that a choice??? What is
guaranteed to happen if we do nothing is that health care costs will
continue to rise at a rate way beyond inflation and in a few years our
"choice" will be to pick a bare bones coverage or nothing at all while
the insurance and drug companies continue to stay fat and happy.

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.
There is ZERO incentive for anyone with health coverage to try and
keep costs down. They stub their toe and they want a full body CAT
scan and the doctors don't want to say not due to malpractice
concerns. And since the insurance company is the one paying the
injured doesn't care what it cost and the doctor doesn't care what it
costs. The reason you can afford to pay CASH for vet care for your
pets is because YOU pay the bill directly. If most pets were covered
by the kind of health insurance people are, the cost of vet care would
most likely quadruple within 5 years.

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.

> 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?
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.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:47:30 -0400, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:03:26 -0400, Jim Higgins
><gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>This is how the developed world does it, why do we refuse to even come
>>reasonably close to this level of care? Why are we the *only* country in
>>the industrialized world where you can go medically bankrupt? :
>
>Because we insist on the ability to file a lawsuit for anything that
>goes wrong (not possible in most countries) and we allow preditory
>class action lawsuits that simply gain lawyers a really, really big
>bank account. Reform the tort system, eliminate all class-action
>lawsuits, eliminate and cap fees paid to lawyers, and all of a sudden
>you'll find that health costs drop by at least 50%.
>
>>...


no you won't. They would only drop by 1.5%.

http://washingtonindependent.com/555...lth-care-costs

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.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:47:30 -0400, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:03:26 -0400, Jim Higgins
>> <gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is how the developed world does it, why do we refuse to even come
>>> reasonably close to this level of care? Why are we the *only* country in
>>> the industrialized world where you can go medically bankrupt? :
>> Because we insist on the ability to file a lawsuit for anything that
>> goes wrong (not possible in most countries) and we allow preditory
>> class action lawsuits that simply gain lawyers a really, really big
>> bank account. Reform the tort system, eliminate all class-action
>> lawsuits, eliminate and cap fees paid to lawyers, and all of a sudden
>> you'll find that health costs drop by at least 50%.
>>
>>> ...
>
>
> no you won't. They would only drop by 1.5%.
>
> http://washingtonindependent.com/555...lth-care-costs

Plus you'd have a lot more dead people.

It's always amusing to see people fall for the lawyer bashing that is
promoted by the corporations and organizations that are sued the most,
with good reason.

They think that saying "tort reform" makes them knowledgeable about the
issue. It doesn't. These are the same clueless people that were so quick
to jump on the bandwagon criticizing the jury that awarded the woman
damages in the McDonald's coffee case.

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/

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.

On 2009-08-28, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote:

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

What I don't get is why people who fully understand what scams the
government does with regards to speeding and other traffic tickets has
even a tiny bit of trust for government in other areas.

In article <h77him$ru2$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>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.

Bingo. That was bad, but when they later required HMO plans to be
offered, it became worse. At least with the old 80/20 plans patients
saw _some_ part of the bill, proportionate to the actual cost.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress