Steely Dan Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Steely, if you don't understand the concept of the government "crowding out" the business sector, then what more can be said? I will give it one more try with you, If the government significantly brings down health insurance costs to the public, then many private insurers will go out of business. Don't need a psychic to tell me that, that's just plain common sense. Considering profit margins are low relative to most US business industries, if the government does bring down costs in a meaningful way, then the only way they will be able to do that is by subsidizing the losses, which will be partially masked by cuts in medicare and higher taxes. Either way, the government can sustain heavy losses, and private insurers can not compete with the government. WIthout a doubt, if this bill passes with a "public option", private insurers will go under. No doubt about it. One by one, they will be falling to the way side, and when the government continues to keep taking heavy losses, the cuts in health care coverage will begin in an attempt to try to reign in this terrifying national deficit that we have. This plan sucks, and doesn't address the underlying issue of rising health care costs. The public doesn't want it, new Rasmussen poll came out today and shows that 59% of the American Public is against the plan and that only 33% of Senior citizens are for it. If you don't understand that most companies are still going to offer private services to business' then you don't get it. Will the private companies shrink in size. Most probably yes, but that's not a huge problem. Capitalism is all about competition. The government plan isn't going to offer the perks that high end BC/BS coverage or Preferred Care will. They will offer care without the BS that comes with the private insurers, read the article above. The private companies have done this to themselves. If they were providing coverages that weren't driving the cost of healthcare up exponentially this wouldn't be a problem. As I stated above their is a minimum amount of money hospitals and doctors can take to ensure their services continue. Do you believe that hospitals and doctors will accept losses? Think about it. So will the profits of the huge insurers drop, yep. Having that happen is not a bad thing in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 The downside to private sector is that offering the good or service, no matter how much it's needed, is optional and driven by profitability. Nothing wrong in that, unless you NEED that good or service. Case in point in this morning's Seattle Times: the Army Corps of Engineers announced some time ago that actions they might have to take to shore up a dam *could* result in flooding in the Kent Valley. And voila! Companies located in the Kent Valley have all received notice from their insurers that they are no longer offering flood insurance. So the *only* option for these people who cannot get insurance is...the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 The downside to private sector is that offering the good or service, no matter how much it's needed, is optional and driven by profitability. Nothing wrong in that, unless you NEED that good or service. Case in point in this morning's Seattle Times: the Army Corps of Engineers announced some time ago that actions they might have to take to shore up a dam *could* result in flooding in the Kent Valley. And voila! Companies located in the Kent Valley have all received notice from their insurers that they are no longer offering flood insurance. So the *only* option for these people who cannot get insurance is...the federal government. Sure because the federal government caused their area to be a potential flood plain. The government didn't cause my cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 The downside to private sector is that offering the good or service, no matter how much it's needed, is optional and driven by profitability. Nothing wrong in that, unless you NEED that good or service. Case in point in this morning's Seattle Times: the Army Corps of Engineers announced some time ago that actions they might have to take to shore up a dam *could* result in flooding in the Kent Valley. And voila! Companies located in the Kent Valley have all received notice from their insurers that they are no longer offering flood insurance. So the *only* option for these people who cannot get insurance is...the federal government. Definitely not a flood insurance expert, but doesn't the fed underwrite all flood insurance and also mandates what coverage and premiums are required in high risk flood zones. So while there are private firms offering coverage, it isn't anywhere close to a free market. It sounds like the area was regraded from a low to moderate risk zone up to a high risk zone. Is it possible that the companies that insure in the low risk zones aren't set up to insure in the high risk ones? Either because they don't have enough reserves or realized that there is no way to make any money at the premiums they are allowed to charge or by some combination thereof. If you live in an area that has a 50% chance of flooding over a certain period of time, the insurer is going to get at least 50% of the value of the house/possessions over that time, or it is guaranteed to lose money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 How do they legislate skyrocketing healthcare costs? Tell BC/BS how much money they can make? What's your solution? What legislation would you propose? BC/BS is not-for-profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/25/marin...folo/index.html The VA is as incompetent as it gets.......I know that through personal experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 This situation has absolutely nothing to do with government run health care but most of the comments so far are just bashing government run health care. If anyone bothered to read the article, it is about veterans who claimed they were sickened while serving or living near a military base. Because a causal link has not been found between living there and there illness, the VA has refused to cover these illnesses as "service related" Do you think that if they were covered under private medical insurance at the time they lived on the base, that the private insurance company would agree to cover them years later when they got sick and claim that it started years ago when they were covered?? Maybe you should try to vilify these vets for being uninsured. That seems like a better right-wing argument. Yep... I think people have a hard time reading: Kelly is one of 20 retired U.S. Marines or sons of Marines who once lived at Camp Lejeune... Granted, I think it is deplorable about the Marines... Now mix in the family and children... Quite a sticky wicket if they can't find a legit connection (or can they?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The VA is as incompetent as it gets.......I know that through personal experience On the other hand my father has been dealing with them (the VA) for over 50 years and he would disagree with you. I guess it cancels things out. Like anything else, it is how YOU manage your care too. And believe me, through the years he has run into all kinds of stuff, but he still has got out of it what he wanted and the type of care he demanded. Wow... Kinda sounds like the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Okay so we all agree that problem is the cost we are paying. We do disagree somewhat on the cause. I would argue the oligopoly of insurance companies are the reason for the problem and the idea of insurance itself without strict regs. I do not think the problem is government involvement necessarily. But the current gov't involvement aggravates the problem and should be changed. The argument against gov't involvement is that it can never provide the right kind because it is too bureaucratic for lack of more descriptive word, but that still doesn't solve the problem of private insurance and its collusionary tendencies forcing costs up and prescriptive tendencies of coverage. And if you got rid of both, then Doctors and their natural tendency to go where the money is would naturally become prescriptive (capitalism and the laws of diminishing returns and profit optimization). So in order to spread out services to everyone, some government sponsored support for medical care is necessary. Say, a government reinsurance program with risk pooling and a strong AG to go after WFA. Let me see if I understand your underlying premise. If something costs more than you want to spend, that is a problem which the nation should address. Scaling back your demands to what you are willing to pay for is not an option. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Let me see if I understand your underlying premise. If something costs more than you want to spend, that is a problem which the nation should address. Scaling back your demands to what you are willing to pay for is not an option. Why? Because only the government can (fill in the blank). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Because only the government can (fill in the blank). ...be the only ones with the resources capable of addressing the problems the children create. I understand the gov't hate... After all they are the big dog and can steal competition away. Yet, there are certain things that I think they were meant for... And one of them is stepping in where the private sector screws over the cititzens. Health care is one such area that people are getting screwed over in. Hey, if you don't like mommy and daddy getting involved, then play like adults. Until then, you will always have the gov't intervening. I understand why one would want to diminish the gov't's resources too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Because only the government can (fill in the blank). The assumption goes beyong the public versus private sector. Even if we accept that the private sector is more efficient, why should it be the role of the government to create a way (public or private) for people to buy a particular service at a level of their choosing and at a price of their choosing? I don't see it happening anytime soon with, say, luxury yachts, organic vegetables, or swedish massages. What is so special Heath Care that it is appropriate for the government to interfere with market prices? Encourage is one thing; attempting to create price controls is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Let me see if I understand your underlying premise. If something costs more than you want to spend, that is a problem which the nation should address. Scaling back your demands to what you are willing to pay for is not an option. Why? Reasonable question, gets down to what is considered a public good or necessity and what is a luxury good, something I can do without. I know that is a value judgment, but healthcare like phone service is increasingly considered a public good. Also, part of my frustration is the lack of transparency in the system as others have argued. Insurance cos, doctors and hospitals like Verizon nickle and dime you to death and you can never tell what the real cost is going to be till long after the service is rendered. Luckily in the cell phone era there is real competition and you have other options. In the insurance era, nothing is very clear and options have dwindled in the last twenty years and new carriers in the market place have become slim and non. P.S. I left Verizon for a new carrier that allows me to hook in with wireless hotspots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Sure because the federal government caused their area to be a potential flood plain. The government didn't cause my cancer. Don't be so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The assumption goes beyong the public versus private sector. Even if we accept that the private sector is more efficient, why should it be the role of the government to create a way (public or private) for people to buy a particular service at a level of their choosing and at a price of their choosing? I don't see it happening anytime soon with, say, luxury yachts, organic vegetables, or swedish massages. What is so special Heath Care that it is appropriate for the government to interfere with market prices? Encourage is one thing; attempting to create price controls is another. In this case the private sector is less efficient. I know you disagree with that. The pols would not be beating this drum if the people weren't forcing them too. The people are speaking and they want control and change... Maybe not you or others on this board... Hate to beat old drums, IMO we can't afford to turn the clock back to 1929. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Don't be so sure. That's a whole different topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 In this case the private sector is less efficient. I know you disagree with that. The pols would not be beating this drum if the people weren't forcing them too. The people are speaking and they want control and change... Maybe not you or others on this board... Hate to beat old drums, IMO we can't afford to turn the clock back to 1929. You sure it's not the POLS that want CONTROL and change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 On the other hand my father has been dealing with them (the VA) for over 50 years and he would disagree with you. I guess it cancels things out. Like anything else, it is how YOU manage your care too. And believe me, through the years he has run into all kinds of stuff, but he still has got out of it what he wanted and the type of care he demanded. Wow... Kinda sounds like the private sector. Documents had to be found for my father to continue getting care through the VA. The main office of the VA faxed those forms to my mom, so he could continue. When he passed away over the summer, they refused to pay for his burial, because he was never active- my mom faxed them the same form they faxed her earlier and it was taken care of. That is complete incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Documents had to be found for my father to continue getting care through the VA. The main office of the VA faxed those forms to my mom, so he could continue. When he passed away over the summer, they refused to pay for his burial, because he was never active- my mom faxed them the same form they faxed her earlier and it was taken care of. That is complete incompetence. I don't doubt you, yet you can't imagine what people try and pull over on the gov't. For some reason when somebody calls 411 in Chicago and asks for the "army" they get me... Go figure! Through the years we have tried to get that changed with the phone company... To no avail, again... Go figure! Anyway, you should see the doosies of story's I have fielded through the years... Most of the time I just politely point them to the nearest recuiter for the military mission side of things... Well, at least you get a live voice 24/7/365! On another note... One time I think I sent a kid off to military school... A mother called and was at wits end with her son and wanted to know where the closest military school was... I travel to BFLO a lot and pass Howe in Indiana... I said she should look into that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I don't doubt you, yet you can't imagine what people try and pull over on the gov't. For some reason when somebody calls 411 in Chicago and asks for the "army" they get me... Go figure! Through the years we have tried to get that changed with the phone company... To no avail, again... Go figure! Anyway, you should see the doosies of story's I have fielded through the years... Most of the time I just politely point them to the nearest recuiter for the military mission side of things... Well, at least you get a live voice 24/7/365! On another note... One time I think I sent a kid off to military school... A mother called and was at wits end with her son and wanted to know where the closest military school was... I travel to BFLO a lot and pass Howe in Indiana... I said she should look into that! That reminds me of a call I had to field. The lady was complaining that we had no right to charge her credit card as her 16 year old son used it on our website to purchase a health food product. My initial thought was, "If your 16 year old son has access to the internet and your credit card, we are the least of your problems." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts