Honda Car Forum

"Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> wrote in message
news:vj5j951vmvfv5j16ua2hldpl69e1vn6tb6@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 05:31:29 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-08-29, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You always avoid walking the talk. Here you do it again. What are
>>> you afraid of? Those are honest questions that IF you were
>>> intellectually honest you would be able to answer. Your failure to do
>>> so speaks volumes about the depth of your knowledge.
>>

And this has WHAT to do with automobiles?

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.

On 2009-09-03, erschroedinger@gmail.com <erschroedinger@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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%.

Cite? I'll wager if those numbers weren't pulled out of your ass that
government math was used to create them.

>> 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.

Sorry, no. But those who believe 'cash for clunkers' is a good program
obviously believe in Santa Claus... that the 'toys' come out of the
ether or built by elves with magic or whatever that no resources were
taken from other people to provide it.

On Sep 3, 4:17*pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2009-09-03, erschroedin...@gmail.com <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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%.
>
> Cite? *I'll wager if those numbers weren't pulled out of your ass that
> government math was used to create them.
>

According to the latest annual report of the Medicare board of
trustees (these reports are required by law), Medicare spent $431.5
billion dollars in 2007. Of this amount, $6.3 billion was
administrative expenditures (or overhead). If we do the math, we
determine that Medicare’s overhead was 1.5 percent of its
expenditures. Other data presented in the trustees report indicate
Medicare’s overhead was about 2 percent throughout this decade, about
2 percent during the 1990s, and about 3 percent in the 1980s.

During the last three or four decades, the comparable figure for
health insurance companies has been 20 percent while the comparable
figure for self-insured firms has been about 10 percent. I think it is
safe to say all reasonable people would agree that 2 percent is
“lower” than 20 percent and 10 percent.


Among experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, the 2-percent
figure for Medicare is widely (probably universally) accepted. I offer
two examples of expert opinion from the conservative side of the
health care reform debate: the Lewin Group, and a coalition of
organizations and individuals that signed an open letter to Congress
in 1999.

The Lewin Group is a consulting firm which is on record criticizing
single-payer proponents. It often makes unjustifiably favorable
assumptions about the cost-cutting abilities of health insurance
companies. It was purchased by United Health Group last year. It uses
the 2-percent figure to estimate Medicare’s overhead costs and the
overhead costs of Medicare-like systems (cf the Lewin Group’s reports
for the states of California and Colorado).

In 1999, a coalition of conservative and middle-of-the road groups and
individuals signed an open letter to Congress begging Congress to
raise Medicare’s administrative spending level to the level “found in
the private sector” so that Medicare would be better equipped to
function like a managed care insurance company. The coalition included
the Heritage Foundation, the former Health Insurance Association of
America (the trade group that represented the non-HMO wing of the
health insurance industry), the American Enterprise Institute, the
Concord Coalition, and Wellpoint Health Networks.

This coalition stated that Medicare’s overhead was less than 2
percent. Here is how they put it: “The latest report of the Medicare
trustees points out that HCFA’s administrative expenses represented
only 1 percent of the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund
[which finances Part A] and less than 2 percent of the Supplementary
Medical Insurance trust fund [which at that time financed Part
B]” (Heritage Foundation et al., “Open letter to Congress and the
executive: Crisis facing HCFA and millions of Americans,” Health
Affairs 1999;18(1):8-10, 8). Obviously, the average of these two trust
funds comes to less than 2 percent.


> >> 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.
>
> Sorry, no. But those who believe 'cash for clunkers' is a good program
> obviously believe in Santa Claus... that the 'toys' come out of the
> ether or built by elves with magic or whatever that no resources were
> taken from other people to provide it.

Oh, the right-wing "taxes are theft" screed. Well, Doofus, if you
don't want to be a part of a society and pay for its upkeep, LEAVE.

On 2009-09-04, erschroedinger@gmail.com <erschroedinger@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 4:17?pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-03, erschroedin...@gmail.com <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 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%.
>>
>> Cite? ?I'll wager if those numbers weren't pulled out of your ass that
>> government math was used to create them.
>>
>
> According to the latest annual report of the Medicare board of
> trustees (these reports are required by law), Medicare spent $431.5
> billion dollars in 2007. Of this amount, $6.3 billion was
> administrative expenditures (or overhead).

There's the first issue. It's a percentage of what they spent. As a
government program with FORCED participation that calculation is going
to look good simply because of the nature of overhead costs.

> If we do the math, we
> determine that Medicare?s overhead was 1.5 percent of its
> expenditures. Other data presented in the trustees report indicate
> Medicare?s overhead was about 2 percent throughout this decade, about
> 2 percent during the 1990s, and about 3 percent in the 1980s.

Ahh... so they didn't include all the work that they force on others.

> During the last three or four decades, the comparable figure for
> health insurance companies has been 20 percent while the comparable
> figure for self-insured firms has been about 10 percent. I think it is
> safe to say all reasonable people would agree that 2 percent is
> ?lower? than 20 percent and 10 percent.

According to you I guess. I'll wager 'private overhead' has a
drastically different definition than 'medicare overhead'.

> Among experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, the 2-percent
> figure for Medicare is widely (probably universally) accepted. I offer
> two examples of expert opinion from the conservative side of the
> health care reform debate: the Lewin Group, and a coalition of
> organizations and individuals that signed an open letter to Congress
> in 1999.
>
> The Lewin Group is a consulting firm which is on record criticizing
> single-payer proponents. It often makes unjustifiably favorable
> assumptions about the cost-cutting abilities of health insurance
> companies. It was purchased by United Health Group last year. It uses
> the 2-percent figure to estimate Medicare?s overhead costs and the
> overhead costs of Medicare-like systems (cf the Lewin Group?s reports
> for the states of California and Colorado).
>
> In 1999, a coalition of conservative and middle-of-the road groups and
> individuals signed an open letter to Congress begging Congress to
> raise Medicare?s administrative spending level to the level ?found in
> the private sector? so that Medicare would be better equipped to
> function like a managed care insurance company. The coalition included
> the Heritage Foundation, the former Health Insurance Association of
> America (the trade group that represented the non-HMO wing of the
> health insurance industry), the American Enterprise Institute, the
> Concord Coalition, and Wellpoint Health Networks.
>
> This coalition stated that Medicare?s overhead was less than 2
> percent. Here is how they put it: ?The latest report of the Medicare
> trustees points out that HCFA?s administrative expenses represented
> only 1 percent of the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund
> [which finances Part A] and less than 2 percent of the Supplementary
> Medical Insurance trust fund [which at that time financed Part
> B]? (Heritage Foundation et al., ?Open letter to Congress and the
> executive: Crisis facing HCFA and millions of Americans,? Health
> Affairs 1999;18(1):8-10, 8). Obviously, the average of these two trust
> funds comes to less than 2 percent.

Without definitions it's not really all that useful. Government and
others in the political realm tend to redefine words to get the results
wanted.

>> >> 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.

>> Sorry, no. But those who believe 'cash for clunkers' is a good program
>> obviously believe in Santa Claus... that the 'toys' come out of the
>> ether or built by elves with magic or whatever that no resources were
>> taken from other people to provide it.

> Oh, the right-wing "taxes are theft" screed. Well, Doofus, if you
> don't want to be a part of a society and pay for its upkeep, LEAVE.

look, buying my neighbor a new car or his health care or
his food or his home or anything else isn't the upkeep of
society. It's the degrading of society. Your form of taxes is using the
political means to wealth. That is, taking it from the productive
people using the legal violence of the state. It's hiring thugs to
provide the political 'winners' with booty taken from the political
'losers'. It degrades productive work by making those who do not spend
their time in the political realm the effective slaves or serfs of those
who do. Why should anyone engage in productive work when he instead can
use political 'work' to get what he wants from his neighbors?

When political process can be used to provide people with anything they
wish, cars, health care, cheese, whatever, why bother doing anything
else but manipulate the political process? Why should I, or anyone else,
work for a living when by getting a sufficently sized rabble together
and/or appropiate placements of cash can get lots lots more back through
the government? Why serve my fellow man by providing goods and services
at a market price when I can just have my friends in government take the
funds from him and give them to me?

If you think it's the upkeep of society to buy other people goods and
services you are welcome to do that WITH YOUR OWN MONEY, not the money
of other people. (Remember private chairity?) Aggression agianst your
neighbors (pay these new taxes to provide X to other people or go to
prison) is not upkeeping society, it's destroying it.

PeterD 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%.
>
>> ...

Straight from Rush's anal aperture, step right up ...!