Gene Frenkle Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Aren't you people arguing that this is a sign that public insurance is not good, or not working, actually arguing in favor of Obama's plan that there should be both a private and public plan? Because that is what the writer in the article is arguing for. No they're really just protesting Obama. For some it's payback for how Bush was treated. For others, it's simply how they roll with partisan politics. For the rednecks and old folks, it just might be straight racism. There may be a few with legitimate beef based on the facts, but every fact I've heard shouted at town hall meetings so far is based on fear and lies with regard to the actual proposed bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 At least the liberals are just doing it to each other this week. Admittedly, the absolute internal chaos and confusion of the Democratic party while holding full control of the US government is, at the very least, fun to watch. Way to switch gears to a complete non-sequitur. I may think I know everything I'm ever going to know, but you're supposed to be smarter than this. Stop rooting for the laundry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 At least the liberals are just doing it to each other this week. Admittedly, the absolute internal chaos and confusion of the Democratic party while holding full control of the US government is, at the very least, fun to watch. Do you think if one party, either party, holds either house as a majority, they all should just fall in line with one message or just follow the party line, or go along with the White House? There should be internal fighting, from either side, it's a very difficult issue with a couple dozen different elements and ways to go about trying to fix it. You're talking about 300 different members of congress. This isn't unusual, it's par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 That's only if all of the private sector insurance companies fail to compete in a free market with the public option, right? And who says that Health Care, a vital resource for those who need it, should strictly be provided by a free market? Isn't there some sort of moral standard that should be applied here? And you can stick your economics degree back in your purse, my Mensa prodigy friend, this isn't a difficult concept. To your first question, No. If the government significantly lowers the price of health care, it will put Private Insurers out of business. It gives the government an unfair competitive advantage over the private industry due to the unlimited amount resources that is has. The government can subsidize the losses where as the private sector can't. Also, and I'm sure you probably didn't know this, but the profit margins in the health insurance industry is at 3% accordint to a study done by WellPoint/Blue Cross Blue Shield, so there really isn't hardly any wiggle room for the health insurance companies to lower their costs. More competition is not the solution, because there is a small profit margin. The only way the government will be able to significantly lower costs is if they subsidize the losses which of course adds to the deficit. That my friend is Crowding Out the Private Sector. Not too difficult of a concept to understand now is it? To your second question, let's just take it a step further shall we? Pharmaceutical products, doctors and hospitals could all fall in the "moral standard" argument that you layed out now couldn't it? Drugs should be made by the government, it is a vital resource for those who need it, and should it strictly be provided by a free market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Aren't you people arguing that this is a sign that public insurance is not good, or not working, actually arguing in favor of Obama's plan that there should be both a private and public plan? Because that is what the writer in the article is arguing for. I'm not arguing this point, regarding the Canadian issue, I just responded to other posts. Here's an interesting article from Peggy Noonan, I figure I'd provide you the link see you seem to have a fondness for her. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3330098540.html Oh, and Gene Frenkle, I'm sure you'd hate to read this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 To your first question, No. If the government significantly lowers the price of health care, it will put Private Insurers out of business. It gives the government an unfair competitive advantage over the private industry due to the unlimited amount resources that is has. The government can subsidize the losses where as the private sector can't. Also, and I'm sure you probably didn't know this, but the profit margins in the health insurance industry is at 3% accordint to a study done by WellPoint/Blue Cross Blue Shield, so there really isn't hardly any wiggle room for the health insurance companies to lower their costs. More competition is not the solution, because there is a small profit margin. The only way the government will be able to significantly lower costs is if they subsidize the losses which of course adds to the deficit. That my friend is Crowding Out the Private Sector. Not too difficult of a concept to understand now is it? To your second question, let's just take it a step further shall we? Pharmaceutical products, doctors and hospitals could all fall in the "moral standard" argument that you layed out now couldn't it? Drugs should be made by the government, it is a vital resource for those who need it, and should it strictly be provided by a free market? I saw yesterday from Fortune magazine that the profit margin was actually between 2-10% in a single year. In 2006, which was the year this was on, Cigna was 10. Aetna and United Heaalth were 7. Wellpoint was 6. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...ged_Care/2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 To your first question, No. If the government significantly lowers the price of health care, it will put Private Insurers out of business. It gives the government an unfair competitive advantage over the private industry due to the unlimited amount resources that is has. The government can subsidize the losses where as the private sector can't. Also, and I'm sure you probably didn't know this, but the profit margins in the health insurance industry is at 3% accordint to a study done by WellPoint/Blue Cross Blue Shield, so there really isn't hardly any wiggle room for the health insurance companies to lower their costs. More competition is not the solution, because there is a small profit margin. The only way the government will be able to significantly lower costs is if they subsidize the losses which of course adds to the deficit. The system is as efficient as it could be? Were you laughing when you typed this? Be honest. Perhaps a reasonable option (public) for the less fortunate (less hard-working) would cause these behemoth health care companies to streamline their ridiculous operation a bit. There are gross inefficiencies in the private health care/insurance industry. Maybe they need a good kick in the a$$. To your second question, let's just take it a step further shall we? Pharmaceutical products, doctors and hospitals could all fall in the "moral standard" argument that you layed out now couldn't it? Drugs should be made by the government, it is a vital resource for those who need it, and should it strictly be provided by a free market? This is a complete Straw-man. This is not being proposed anywhere as far as I've seen. However, knowing something about how these drug patents and pharma companies operate, the world would be better off with reform in that process as well. How long should a cure for Malaria be kept from diseased children in third world countries because of a pharmaceutical company's patent on a drug that could cure them? The Moral Majority (or Minority) should start practicing what they preach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I'm not arguing this point, regarding the Canadian issue, I just responded to other posts. Here's an interesting article from Peggy Noonan, I figure I'd provide you the link see you seem to have a fondness for her. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3330098540.html Oh, and Gene Frenkle, I'm sure you'd hate to read this To be honest, I think both sides are equally at fault in this singular issue of anger and town halls. I think the Democrats are absolutely wrong to say that there isn't legitimate fear and legitimate anger out for about spending and government intervention. The problem is, IMO, approximately half of the people out there are legitimate and half the people are "ginned up" from blatant lies and ignorance and misunderstanding. On the other hand, I think the conservatives are absolutely wrong to both promote blatant lies they know are not true and try to simply stop Obama from winning (meaning passing vital health care reform, I'm not saying Obama's plan is right), versus doing what is best for the country. It looks to me like it's half and half, and that is why there is so much sniping and so much apparent chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I saw yesterday from Fortune magazine that the profit margin was actually between 2-10% in a single year. In 2006, which was the year this was on, Cigna was 10. Aetna and United Heaalth were 7. Wellpoint was 6. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...ged_Care/2.html Did you see the link I provided to you yesterday? It was from WellPoint. I think Wellpoint would know their numbers better than Fortune Magazine. WellPoint says 3%. Profit margins have been getting squeezed, they are getting smaller and smaller due to "administrative" costs. Actually claims processing takes up a good portion of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Do you think if one party, either party, holds either house as a majority, they all should just fall in line with one message or just follow the party line, or go along with the White House? There should be internal fighting, from either side, it's a very difficult issue with a couple dozen different elements and ways to go about trying to fix it. You're talking about 300 different members of congress. This isn't unusual, it's par for the course. While I don't expect them to fall in line, I would expect them to be a bit more united in terms of their message. And the reality is, as we both agreed, the discussion this weekend of taking the public option off the table was just a trial balloon. You know that. I know that. Most people who follow politics regularly know that. But that's not the overall public perception. The overall public perception becomes one of "confusion and chaos" in the WH because every time they hear something yesterday, they wake up today and hear something else. What the general public experiences is this: Yesterday: Public option out? Today: No, public option in. Yesterday: Hear lies about the health care reform? Forward us those emails. Today: No, don't forward us those emails. Yesterday: We're going to "create" a "viral email" of our own and get it to the public. Today: We didn't do that. A third party did it. Yesterday: These protesters at town hall meetings aren't real. They're astroturfers backed by insurance companies and they don't represent America. Today: The people giving standing ovations at the Obama town hall meetings ARE real and represent America. Yesterday: This must be done by August. Today: We didn't really mean August, but if you don't set deadlines, nothing gets done. So now it must get done by end of year. Yesterday: The stimulus is working. Today: The recover act isn't supposed to work for two years. It's no wonder they're running into public buzzsaws whereever they go. I've mentioned this to you before: walking the line between implied and inferred is risky business, as the WH is starting to realize as poll after poll shows decreased public support on virtually anything that is important to the administration. And when you're not prepared to better define your goals, be prepared for your competition to define them for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Oh, and Gene Frenkle, I'm sure you'd hate to read this That was a good article with a lot of valid points. It highlights what Obama has accomplished so far and gives some pretty sound advice. It does highlight the Republican predilection toward fear though, doesn't it? This health care bill, in any form, does not need to pass right now as far as I'm concerned. The more thought and development that goes into the solution the better. The difference between you and me is not so great. However, I try to keep my mind open and would never take an article from a reputable source and disregard what it says out of hand. I am not a partisan stooge. You might disagree, and that's your right of course. The center always looks left from the right and right from the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Did you see the link I provided to you yesterday? It was from WellPoint. I think Wellpoint would know their numbers better than Fortune Magazine. WellPoint says 3%. Profit margins have been getting squeezed, they are getting smaller and smaller due to "administrative" costs. Actually claims processing takes up a good portion of that. Yeah, Wellpoint's own numbers are probably really realistic. So are Ralph Wilson's and how much the Bills make. Are you really serious? Here are last year's numbers I just found from Fortune. Most of the big ones were over 6. United, Aetna, Cigna. Wellpoint was 5.5. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for.../223/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The system is as efficient as it could be? Were you laughing when you typed this? Be honest. Perhaps a reasonable option (public) for the less fortunate (less hard-working) would cause these behemoth health care companies to streamline their ridiculous operation a bit. There are gross inefficiencies in the private health care/insurance industry. Maybe they need a good kick in the a$$. This is a complete Straw-man. This is not being proposed anywhere as far as I've seen. However, knowing something about how these drug patents and pharma companies operate, the world would be better off with reform in that process as well. How long should a cure for Malaria be kept from diseased children in third world countries because of a pharmaceutical company's patent on a drug that could cure them? The Moral Majority (or Minority) should start practicing what they preach. Where did I say "the system is as efficient as it could be? I guess when there is no where to go, just make stuff up. Straw man argument? Oh Gene, you missed the whole point didn't you? That's ok, coming from someone who says "who care's if they tax the upper class, as long as it doesn't affect me?", what could I possibly expect from you. No one is proposing that genius, it is a point that I am making, that obviously went way over your head. So let me explain it to you in a more simple context. Where do you draw the line? When is enough enough? The argument you just made regarding Heatlh Insurance and the moral dilemna we have can be made for the pharmaceutical industry, or for that matter for the entire medical field. At what point should the government say to itself, "ok, the extension of government control stops here?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Did you see the link I provided to you yesterday? It was from WellPoint. I think Wellpoint would know their numbers better than Fortune Magazine. WellPoint says 3%. Profit margins have been getting squeezed, they are getting smaller and smaller due to "administrative" costs. Actually claims processing takes up a good portion of that. Again, fix the fkcud up system already! Administrative costs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 That was a good article with a lot of valid points. It highlights what Obama has accomplished so far and gives some pretty sound advice. It does highlight the Republican predilection toward fear though, doesn't it? This health care bill, in any form, does not need to pass right now as far as I'm concerned. The more thought and development that goes into the solution the better. The difference between you and me is not so great. However, I try to keep my mind open and would never take an article from a reputable source and disregard what it says out of hand. I am not a partisan stooge. You might disagree, and that's your right of course. The center always looks left from the right and right from the left. Listen, I'm for abortion, gay marriages and other fruity things as well, but I am a fiscal conservative, and I'd like to think that I have sound sense of business. There is very little profit margins in the health insurance industry. Further competition wouldn't drive down the cost significantly. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Considering 13% of Health care costs are non health care related, and only 3% is profits, that tells me something. It tells me that we need effective tort reform. 6% of the costs are accounted for claims processing, which tells me that this is an area that needs to be reformed. I was also against the Stimulus bill because it didn't take a genius to figure out that it was not going to be a good bill. 10% of the funds are to be used in infrastructure projects and less than half of it to be doled out this year. Infrastructure is where you would get the most bang for your buck out of this piece of legislation and there simply wasn't enough and certainly not in the most timely fashion. I was very skeptical of the Home Modification plan. Why? simple, it wasn't so much a matter of lowering people's payments that was the issue it was more complex than that. 1) The value of the homes were worth less than what they had owed and still continuing to sink. Why keep your home if the you are paying for something that is still declining in value? 2) People were losing jobs, so it didn't matter if you dropped the payments by a few hundred dollars if you didn't have a job. These are the issues that I criticize the most, why? because they didn't make good, sound economic sense, and where are they today, either they have failed or they are failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 It's no wonder they're running into public buzzsaws whereever they go. I've mentioned this to you before: walking the line between implied and inferred is risky business, as the WH is starting to realize as poll after poll shows decreased public support on virtually anything that is important to the administration. And when you're not prepared to better define your goals, be prepared for your competition to define them for you. You know and I know all of this crap from polls and the general public has about 2% to do with anything other than the economy right now and in the near future, and the deficit right now and in the near future and long future. That is it. I don't think more than 1% of the public has a firm grasp on why the deficit is so big. Most of the stuff about health care is about fear, and most of that, IMO, unwarranted because I don't believe for a second that the government is trying to take over health care, or drive out private insurance, and you do. His polls are going down because it's going to take the economy a while to get back and that's what people care about. That is why I am not in the least bit worried about his poll numbers or that this is not getting passed or the day to day nonsense that is propagated by the press. It means zero. The bill is going to pass in some form and in 10 years we're going to have a little better idea as to whether it has helped a lot, a little, broke even, hurt a little or hurt a lot. In a year we're going to know whether the economy is really on its way back or still sluggish. If it is, Obama's numbers will be way up again, if it's not they will likely be lower than they are now. That's all this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Where did I say "the system is as efficient as it could be? I guess when there is no where to go, just make stuff up. Well, I guess your 3% profit margin could be improved with some incentive then, couldn't it? Straw man argument? Oh Gene, you missed the whole point didn't you? That's ok, coming from someone who says "who care's if they tax the upper class, as long as it doesn't affect me?", what could I possibly expect from you. This is a classic 'Poisoning the Well' argument, a logical fallacy. I bet you've never even heard of it and you used it so well! Bravo. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/p...g-the-well.html Where do you draw the line? When is enough enough? The argument you just made regarding Heatlh Insurance and the moral dilemna we have can be made for the pharmaceutical industry, or for that matter for the entire medical field. At what point should the government say to itself, "ok, the extension of government control stops here?" There has always been a line - don't pretend one is being freshly introduced here. Just because it is hard to define the correct boundaries does not mean that those boundaries are not worth defining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Again, fix the fkcud up system already! Administrative costs... btw, you can roll your eyes to Dog, because I was quoting his term "administrative" costs. Hence the quotations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Well, I guess your 3% profit margin could be improved with some incentive then, couldn't it? This is a classic 'Poisoning the Well' argument, a logical fallacy. I bet you've never even heard of it and you used it so well! Bravo. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/p...g-the-well.html There has always been a line - don't pretend one is being freshly introduced here. Just because it is hard to define the correct boundaries does not mean that those boundaries are not worth defining. Well, I guess your 3% profit margin could be improved with some incentive then, couldn't it? HuH You're right, you don't understand economics. Poisoning the Well argument? Hey I'm just paraphrasing what you said. Don't pretend one is being freshly introduced here? Really? Nationalization of certain Banks certainly is a fresh concept for a capitalist country. Nationalization of the auto industry I think falls in that category, and all though the health insurance debate has been around for a while, it certainly doesn't fit into the way of thinking that I would want from the country I live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 btw, you can roll your eyes to Dog, because I was quoting his term "administrative" costs. Hence the quotations That was more directed at the term itself. The resources that mere paperwork and red tape seems to be taking up almost has to be bad in any system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts