fooger03

iTrader: (2)

The administrative costs exist because of...
A. Government regulations
B. Imperfect information

Get rid of the current regulations, and paperwork processing will be reduced drastically

Add a regulation which requires medical facilities to publish comprehensive care rates in order to get rid of Imperfect information, and you'll see them finding ways to cut administrative costs in order to be competitive.

When is the last time you shopped around for the best comprehensive price for a leg fracture? Flu virus? Have you *EVER* shopped prices for "essential" medical care? Do you think your doctor actually cares about keeping his prices down?

Do you get the feeling that "essential medical care" is not a competitive market? If you do, you're right. Medical care in the U.S. is financially a government sponsored oligopoly. How would U.S. citizens react if they realized that their healthcare system resembled OPEC?

Compare it to the method of finding of non-essential medical care. Do you think maybe there's a little price shopping being done for braces? LASIK? Breast augmentation? Ask any girl who's had a boob job, and she'll know EXACTLY how much it cost her.

If you want to reduce medical costs, the first thing you do is stop asking the healthy people to pay for the sick people, then you find a way for citizens to make it easy to compare prices from different medical providers. We're making every man responsible for himelf.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Wow, that's one hell of a big logical jump Fooger. I'm not even certain it's worth trying to respond to that, considering that you are claiming that private companies create regulation that...they themselves have to pay? (Single payer, 1% or less, our clusterfuck, 30%-45% - if what you are desperately trying to allege were the case, single payer wouldn't be so cheap, and effectively your logic boils down to that insurance companies put regulations on themselves to pay more in order to bill. Even Medic...aid? is only a mid-3% overhead, and it has the same regulations and overheads you are referring to.)

(Edit) So I don't back to back post...

http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...tanamo-numbers

At least 92% of the prisoners at Guantanamo had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any kind of terrorism.

rleete

iTrader: (21)

ftfy

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I never claimed that private companies created the regulations - no private company in it's right mind would would create regulations against itself. Your government has created the regulations because "we the people" have decided that we, individuals, are more important than everyone else. In your mind, it makes sense that YOUR private information be protected, it makes sense that YOUR medical care be timely, it makes sense that YOUR medical insurance protects you against everything that could possibly happen, and it makes sense that YOU will be taken care of if you are physically or mentally disabled for the remainder of your life.

All of this makes sense to you so long as YOU don't have to pay for it.

All the government has to do is support the majority of voters, and since the majority of voters *believe* that they stand to gain financially from universal healthcare, they support it

And guess what, the people that have to pay for it aren't the majority.

And guess what else - the people that don't have to pay for it, don't realize how much they'll be paying for it. Businesses pay for nothing - everything is paid for indirectly by the end consumer. You and me, we pay for it, we just don't pay for it directly. We pay for it in lower real wages, higher prices, fewer jobs, depreciating money...

...and lower quality, higher cost, non-competitive healthcare.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The larger companies do it all the time to drive out the smaller competition because they can afford the lawsuits, special allowances, and extra costs. This is why corporatism is bad.http://books.google.com/books?id=lKU...page&q&f=false

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Pre-Obama care, the healthy pay for the sick.

Under Obama care, the wealthy pay for the poor.

Without government regulation, every man pays for himself.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Bro, you really might want to go educate yourself on the concept of insurance.

The only alternative to what you seem to think is going on is no insurance.

I mean, I actually COULD get behind that one, but I don't think you are arguing what you want to argue. I mean, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm brushing you off, but each successive post has gotten more and more difficult to take seriously.

Correct terms used? Check
Source used? Check
Correct post? Check

Props for you, sir! As well as a serious ----------ing +1.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Yay I win!

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

random

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

You're still working under the false pretext: "health insurance is a necessity"

Before the appearance of health insurance in the mid 1800s, life was actually possible, contrary to what you are advocating.

The alternative that I propose is this: Health insurance companies are allowed to drop coverage on any individual, they may also raise the rates of any individual to whatever price they deem reasonable.

Will people die? You're damn right people will die. Is there the potential that I'll be one of those people who die? Of course there is!!! Will health costs drop dramatically? Abso-freaking-lutely. Break a leg? It's covered. Catch a flu? It's covered. Fat, chain-smoker, alcoholic, and beyond the average life expectancy? Hope you have a health savings account, because no insurance company can make a profit off of insuring you.

Bro, you really might want to go re-educate yourself on the concept of insurance, the only alternative to what you seem to think is going on is FREE INSURANCE.

I don't expect you to take me seriously, your mind is already made up because you decided to take what other people have said as fact instead of thinking critically about the problem. The only you would be able to take me seriously is if you were well educated in economics.

Every rational thinking individual will always make decisions based on what they think provides the most utility to them - however; due to glaringly imperfect information, few individuals are even capable of comprehending all of the subsequent order effects of their actions and decisions.

Example: if we eliminated "federal minimum wage", unemployment would drop sharply, and the U.S. economy would be back on track in a matter of months... the vast majority of people can't comprehend this - they only see: "if we eliminate federal minimum wage, I won't get paid as much". The EXTREMELY dumb ones think: "if we elimminate federal minimum wage, employers will only pay us pennies"

Back to the point of insurance, I present to you this: "Government regulation has effectively made it illegal for insurance companies to provide reasonably priced medical insurance"

Case Study: Soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves have the ability to purchase their own insurance through the DODs (department of defense) health insurance provider. When it was first made available, the costs to insure an individual service member was somewhere around $80/month (and believe me, this was for QUALITY insurance). Approximately a year after the program was introduced, the DOD was able to evaluate the cost of the program, and REDUCED the cost to service members to around $50/month.

Think about this briefly, while you consider the health condition of your average guardsman/reservist.
A. We're all between the ages of 18-60
B. We aren't allowed in if we're not healthy
C. We're required to maintain a certain level of fitness

So, in an ideal world, without government regulations, a fit, healthy adult, should pay probably less than $50/month for quality health insurance.

Maybe my opinions are skewed though. I suppose that not everyone is willing to make personal sacrifice for the greater good.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I am not sure I understand what you are saying, here. The whole concept behind private health insurance is that the healthy majority help fund the sick minority. Or, with life insurance, that the many who live long lives paying premiums will make up for the few who die shortly after qualifying for coverage.


Either you are muddling some concepts or I am misunderstanding you.


You are not calculating the insurance premiums correctly. There are two numbers that sum to a total: employer and employee contributions. For the total compensation of a Reservist, what is the breakdown between each?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Damn youuuu Scrappy !!!

Joking, but as always, Scrappy makes my point much more eloquently than I myself do.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

It's war not a picnic. I've never been to a combat zone so I'm not going to condemn them for the act, however the fact that they video taped it and put the video on the internet puts the lives of Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, local civilians and their fellow Marines lives at risk when some Afghan local sees the video, gets pissed and decides to go all durka durka jihad for his imaginary deity so he can become a martyr and spend eternity with 77 12-15 y/o's.



^guess who

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

I can't stop laughing!!

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

Wow a politician making sense. How is this possible. The douchebags try and back him into a corner and he frucks their world up. Him talking about the Taliban and Al Qaeda is pretty damn on spot. Every response is basically on par with how I feel.

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

I LOVE his response at 9:46 where douchbag on the right is grilling him on the federal government in drug regulations.

Ron throws it out there: "Why would you want to cancel out what our founders gave us...It was all legal up until the last century..I would let the states do it [regulate drug trade]...and...that would be the way it's supposed to be done...and it was that way...I don't know why we've given up on liberty so soon...[while looking at douchebag on the right] because are you going to use it if somebody legalizes something? this whole idea that if it's legal we're all going to be drug addicts... "

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/12/news...envy/index.htm

Romney's now done if he gets the nom.....

Did he WANT to hand Obama a free win with that? I mean, whether the statement is true or false, it doesn't matter. A montage of unemployment with that vocal track overlaid = GFG, the guy seems to be deadset determined to sink himself in the general election if he gets the nomination.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Yes, I think you misunderstand the concept of insurance. Insurance was invented so that private individuals could have a security blanket against unexpected medical bills. An insurer evaluates every single individual, and provides the individual with a premium price which the insurer expects can net him a profit. Generally, we price shop for insurance, so the insurer willing to make the least profit will win a paying customer. Basically, every man is still responsible for himself, and insurance is nothing more than a contract that says the insurer will provide for medical costs should you be injured or sick. At the end of your policy period, you will be reevaluated, and either party, either the insurer or the insured, may reevaluate the contract at the end of the period. Unfortunately, health insurance is not allowed to work like this

Life insurance still works properly, the insurance company evaluates the individual, and assesses an insurance premium based on how likely that individual is to die. As far as the insurance company is concerned, the higher your premium is, the more likely you are to die. Compare the cost of term life insurance when you buy it at 20 years old versus the cost of term life insurance when you buy it at 80 years old. Life insurance providers will also assess penalties for smokers, drinkers, unhealthy people, fat people, and...high risk takers


Unfortunately, we have grown accustomed to the idea that the healthy 99% will pay for the unhealthy 1% (I am the 99%!!) Pre-regulation, if the 1% were unable to afford care, their insurance policy would expire, and the insurance company would not renew their policy. It just isn't profitable to do so. When that happens, the cost of health care for the 99% remains relatively affordable. If you're the 99% and you break your leg, it doesn't make sense for your insurer to drop you, after a few weeks, you are going to be a healthy paying individual once more. If, however, you acquire an expensive chronic illness, they will determine that you cost more than they can make on you. This spreads personal responsibility to not get aids, or diabetes, or whatever. It just doesn't make sense to me that I would be responsible for someone else's health.
I will see if I can pull these numbers up, but I was under the impression that the program was paid for entirely by member premiums.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

After a brief search, these are my discoveries:
The only number i was able to turn up was 28% member paid. This takes the total cost to around $194/month for medical, dental, and vision. I was mistaken on the total cost being around $50/month. Co-pays are $0 for visits and prescriptions, and cost share is 15% after an annual $150 deductible.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Krauthammer isn't really a douchebag, he's just a republican. I actually have tons of respect for the man and agree with his views and actually read his column.

The difference between republicans and libertarians, is republicans are simply for econmic freedom, where liberatarians are for both economic AND personal freedoms...

It's kinda funny, as the debates have been going on, and as I've been reading comments on various blogs and all following all the attacks on Ron Paul from boths sides of the table, it makes me move away from being associated from the republican party more and more, to the point where I'm becoming a straight up libertarian myself...as I always find myself in disagreement with republicans on their personal freedoms viewpoint and it really puts a wedge between me and them. Both parties, dem and rep, stand for freedom (where democrats are for personal and republicans are economic) but they both lash out like crazy against people who are for both. It's astounishing to me, but all in all it's just about control...no matter what freedom they "stand for" they just want to be in control of the other side.