It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: enlightenedservant
All those steps reduce "election fixing and fraud" that the DNC relies upon to get candidates into office - cry me a river.
originally posted by: Aazadan
Well, for one, the money automatically goes further because the insurance company profit margins are reduced.
Two, since the government is operating on a larger scale than a regional provider they can purchase services at a better rate. That's how insurance works, it's collective bargaining. A pool of 320 million has more bargaining power than smaller pools of 2000 people each.
Three, administrative costs are reduced.
Four, under single payer the government still isn't taking over private industry. They're the customer in such a scenario, not the provider. All of the medical providers, device manufacturers, medicine distributors, and so on still exist. Free market competition is still there as providers compete to get contracts. The difference is that the government pays for the services in the form of annual contracts rather than each customer paying with much less leverage.
Five, since it's based on taxes, the tax burden can be scaled to income. The middle class who are already paying disproportionately high rates for their medical care would actually see a rather nice increase in income, because they would pay less in taxes than they're paying now in premiums and out of pocket costs.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan
I guess what you do not realize is we were told the same lies when obamacare was passed.
originally posted by: Phoenix
What is commonly acceptable 10% ? Insurance executives will love this as its 10% of a much larger pie. Great example is some states got bright idea in early 2000's to turn over heathcare administration to United Healthcare, subsequently UHC reported record profits. They gutted programs for the money.
That's fine idea when pricing is truly free market, but with some markups as much as 1000% over cost to produce - choice is do we get raped excessively or massively - that's not a choice at all is it?
Have you lost your mind, ever looked at cost of beauracracy and it's employees.
Besides wondering why taxpayer should accept higher load without government application of long existing law to reign in the greed which really begs an answer.
originally posted by: ComodoreBlack
a reply to: FauxMulder
They'll probably kill it at senate
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Phoenix
What is commonly acceptable 10% ? Insurance executives will love this as its 10% of a much larger pie. Great example is some states got bright idea in early 2000's to turn over heathcare administration to United Healthcare, subsequently UHC reported record profits. They gutted programs for the money.
Why would insurance executives love single payer? Single payer would put the entire insurance industry out of business. Insurance simply cannot exist on a product like health care where getting seriously ill is extremely common if not guaranteed. The concept of insurance is that people pay a little bit extra on average in order to be protected against rare catastrophic events. Not only is that not what people actually mean they want when they talk about health insurance, but that concept doesn't exist with health care because it's a near certainty that we're all going to be gravely injured/ill at some point in our lives. The catastrophic isn't a rare event, it's extremely common, and therefore an insurance model does not work for health care.
That's fine idea when pricing is truly free market, but with some markups as much as 1000% over cost to produce - choice is do we get raped excessively or massively - that's not a choice at all is it?
Government has many more tools to reign in costs than the democratic voting with your dollars does. Not only can government legislate prices, but thanks to scale they can choose better prices. Furthermore, they have access to the entire nation of providers, or if necessary the world. They can make providers compete for business in a way that the individual cannot.
Have you lost your mind, ever looked at cost of beauracracy and it's employees.
Medicare has far lower administrative costs than the private sector.
Besides wondering why taxpayer should accept higher load without government application of long existing law to reign in the greed which really begs an answer.
Would you rather pay $30 for a service to the private sector or $15 to government for the same service?
originally posted by: marg6043
I didn't like the caca of Obama bill and I am hell bend sure that I will no like this parody of the Caca bill by the Republicans
Why? because as long as the insurance corruption agencies have full control of the health industry we the people will get nothing but crap as usual.
originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Aazadan
If they modeled single payer after Medicare, but kept it separate....the insurance companies would still be able to make money....selling supplemental insurance.
But no matter what happens---single payer or something else---without tort reform, price controls and drug prices being capped and reigned in....insurance will still be too damn expensive.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Aazadan
Id rather currently existing laws be applied and pay 10% of today's prices
Then we all could afford our healthcare.
That's not how the market works though, and no... at 10% of todays prices there would still be many who couldn't afford health care.
originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Forgive me, I interpreted 'one hurdle down' as approval from you. As to my opinion, I'm simply wondering how this new scheme will be an improvement on the last. Being Canadian, it's all crazy talk as far as I'm concerned.
originally posted by: GuidedKill
originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: FauxMulder
I was just about to post this....One hurdle down.
Indeed...a veritable landslide! So please explain why this will be a good thing for Americans.
I actually didn't take a stand either way good or bad...Just saying that it passed a hurdle is all.....
You obviously have a strong opinion so let's hear yours.