No, I understand what you saying quite well. It’s just stupid, so I don’t agree with it.
You are (of course) failing to address the problem. You said that it was a good thing that Medicare costs were almost ten times higher than they were projected. The only thing is, that isn’t true. It’s a bad thing. It is not a check in favor of Medicare; it is a drawback.
So that implies that the consequence of using Medicare as our model is that we will be spending something like $9 trillion over ten years. This is obviously not sustainable - we cannot afford to spend that much. And that will also imply that our UHC program will be running a huge deficit and will go bankrupt. Because Medicare costs almost ten times more than projected, is running at a huge deficit, and will go bankrupt rather soon.
Well, see, there’s your problem. Because it is really, really silly to call a program that has a 900% cost overrun, which is going bankrupt, “efficient”.
No, actually it’s not, and again, there lies your problem.
Because running at a loss is not efficient. Private insurance, however, is not running at a deficit, is not going bankrupt, and therefore is more efficient than Medicare, which is none of those things.
Only to idiots, and who cares what they think. right?
Again, you are mistaking your ideas for reality - an occupational hazard for some people. Because private insurance, unlike Medicare, is sustainable, in the sense of not running at a deficit or going bankrupt.
Medicare costs will have to go up, as you say. But they will have to go up not only because the population is aging, but also because Medicare is running at a loss. They will have to go up, IOW, to the point where Medicare becomes sustainable. Like private insurance is.
I don’t.
No, I am just shooting holes in your arguments. Not the same thing at all.
Profit and loss have absolutely nothing to do with efficiency. I’ve worked for companies making a ton of money while being a mess, and efficient companies losing money. Phone companies sell cellphones at a loss - are they efficient or not? Efficiency is a measure of how much is spent to achieve a goal relative to some perfect minimal amount. Efficient companies will in general make more or lose less than inefficient ones, but it is no guarantee of profit.
But your biggest problem is that you don’t seem to get the very reason behind Medicare - or the Post Office, for that matter. The goal of Medicare is not to make money, but to provide healthcare to those over 65. Period. We could no doubt cut the Medicare budget by putting in death panels, but that defeats the point of the program. The goal of private insurance is to make money for the stockholders - period. Dropping people is a perfectly legitimate way for them to achieve this goal.
Similarly, the goal of the Post Office is not to make money, but to provide universal mail service. That is why they have post offices in tiny towns, which will never make money. That’s why you have people delivering mail on very long routes. The question is how much do we want to give up the concept of universal service to save money. When I worked for the Post Office one summer they were awesomely efficient.
Back in the Bell System days AT&T provided phone service, at a loss, to far off farms because of the desire for universal phone service. The regulators allowed them to charge more for long distance to pay for this, but they could have made more money by not having to keep up miles of wire to one phone. Efficient or not?
Okay, obviously you cannot understand things unless they are spoken like as if to a child. Medicare having cost overruns aren’t a good thing for Medicare. They are a good thing for humanity. Because the cost overruns are the result of amazing breakthroughs in medical technology. The costs were figured back when people lived shorter lives and there was no hope for a lot of conditions.
Since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% and insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9% Do you have a mortgage? Don’t you understand how this works?
I know you can understand this, but you’re so blindly ideological it’s clouding your vision. Please, reread what I wrote five or six times. You are honestly embarrassing yourself. Stop. Read. Understand. Repeat as necessary.
No, that doesn’t follow. All medical costs are increasing. And Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
One more time because you have trouble:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
One more time, just in case:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
You honestly must be smart enough to understand this. Efficiency has nothing to do with cost overruns. If you’d stop and think instead of babbling in abject ignorance you’d get this in a moment.
Pretend you work in my kitchen. I give you too little money to cover expenses. Is it possible that you can also run the kitchen in an efficient manner? This is obvious to anyone. You need to work this out and understand this very, very basic thing before you continue on this topic.
One more time because you have trouble:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
One more time, just in case:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
No, not at all. Running at a loss means you aren’t collecting enough money. You can still be efficient. And Private insurance will double in cost over the next ten years. It will be untenable before Medicare will.
One more time because you have trouble:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
One more time, just in case:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
Wrong. You are unable or unwilling to understand a very simply concept. This is like when I told you how the stimulus works. You simply have a childish partisan fantasy that you’re sticking to, instead of thinking about the issue based on reality. Honestly, re-read what I’ve written and try to understand it.
One more time because you have trouble:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
One more time, just in case:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
Private insurance will double in cost in the next ten years. It is going bankrupt.
One more time because you have trouble:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
One more time, just in case:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
Medicare will not cover its costs in a few years. However, the costs of private insurance are increasing much faster than Medicare.
Not at all. You don’t understand that you do. This is embarrassing.
No, you are sucking on the barrel and pumping round after round into your melon. You are arguing based on ignorant fantasies and you appear unable to reason when given facts.
I’ll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide which of us is unable to think properly.
Also:
One more time because you have trouble:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
One more time, just in case:
Private Insurance is increasing in cost much faster than Medicare.
If this is truly the case, then there is NO NEED AT ALL TO PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF COSTS TO THE VOTING TAXPAYER to win their support.
If the almighty “goal” is the most important thing, there is no need to discuss numbers. Because, it doesn’t matter if it’s 10 times or 1000 times the estimate – the ULTIMATE comeback will always be, “it’s irrelevant we miscalculated the costs by a factor of 1000 because it serves a goal.”
Funny thing is… we voters might not all agree on pursuing those “goals” if we knew the true costs.
I already said that being more efficient, while still meeting the goal, was better. The case in point here is that having a deficit says nothing at all about whether the program is efficient. Efficiency, to repeat, is a measure of how close you come to the ideal of providing value for minimal cost. Please demonstrate that private insurers come closer to this ideal than Medicare.
If you go out shopping to buy 20 items, you can measure the efficiency of your shopping by how close you get to the minimal price for your grocery cart. Not buying the milk to save money is not being efficient.
The real problem with justification is not the cost, but acceptance of the goal. If you don’t accept that it is proper for society to tax its citizens to provide life sustaining healthcare for every person, then the cost is just a sideshow. I’ve asked several times in this thread if those who believe this think it is acceptable for people to die because they couldn’t afford proper treatment. So far, only the sounds of crickets.
That looks like a bald and simple statement, but there is oodles of nuance there. He will be along directly to show you it doesn’t say what you think it does.
Just to clarify the point here, private insurance isn’t going bankrupt, the clients are. Remember how 50% of bankruptcies are the result of medical costs? And how most of those were people with insurance?
Medical costs are going up, which means they are going up for both Medicare AND private insurance premiums. The premiums from my employer based health insurance has been going up every year since I joined. If it continues to go up at that rate, I won’t be able to afford it. Is that efficient? Why is it that you demand more from Medicare than you do from your private insurance company? Did they lie to me four years ago about what my rates would be?
If Medicare was trying to be as efficient as private industry they have a very easy way to accomplish that goal: drop the expensive clients. Expensive clients being the ones in need of life saving treatment. Why do you consider that an appropriate practice?
Tell me something, what would you do if Fedex, after billing you $30 to deliver a package, called and told you that they weren’t going to do it because it would cost them too much? And that the cost is actually $300. Would you accept that? Why are you so willing to crap on Medicare and USPS all the while giving Fedex and Health Partners a free pass?
Here is, what I fully acknowledge, as a ridiculous example, but consider the last time you took a flight. Would you consider it efficient if part way through a flight, with a strong head wind, a bean counter decided the flight was losing money and needed to drop some weight to remain profitable.
Are you okay with them ditching you and/or your bag?
That is what private health care in the US looks like to me.
In Canada, that scenario plays out more like, “professionals have decided someone else needs your seat more than you, we need you to fly tomorrow.” Yes, there is a wait time, but no, we don’t get left to die.
Is acceptable for your daughters to burn to death in a house fire because you were a day late paying your taxes?
I’m not sure how you reconcile that very evil notion with your being a Christian, but I guess you wouldn’t be the first.
Everything you have is because of a social program that the US or your state does. Without police, roads, schools, libraries, utilities or fire departments you would be the equivalent of some dude in Somalia. So pretend all you like that you’re the social top-predator and everyone below you is worthless, you are on the teat of a social welfare program as much as any uneducated trailer park mother.
Ontopic:
You don’t care that for profit insurance companies make it impossible for a large portion of our population to get health care? If someone can’t pay $1200 a month for their health care it’s their fault?
I so need to remember this analogy. I always thought the US health insurance ‘system’ looked crazy; this really expresses how nuts it looks to an outsider.
Oh, bullshit. If I’m paying more into the system than I can ever expect to get in return while others use my money to put bread on their table, exactly who is on whose teat here? Sheesh.
You both are. He his better off because he didn’t starve to death. You are better off because you get to live in a country with a higher quality of life. You could have been born in the libertarian utopia of Somalia and not had to pay a thing. Where would you rather be right now?
Why? Because it demonstrates there is no effective democracy; no population, given a free and informed choice, would ever accept anything less. And hasn’t.
You’ve been lied to and manipulated for 50 years into allowing the biggest con trick in the democratic world to persist - in fact, reading your stuff is like hearing a nicotine addict wax lyrical about Malboro Man. You don’t even know.
You pay a lot because you get a lot. Say you’re a lawyer. You have a good job because our society gives you a legal system that needs you. It gives you roads that allow you to travel to and from clients. It gives you a regulated telecommunications system that allows you to do your job. It gives you an economy that allows highly paid people to exist while dealing with abstractions. It gives you security, so that you know the money you do have is safe in banks and safe on your person. It gives you health, because epidemics are fought on the government’s dime.
You get more in return than you give in by long shot.
Our system of *socialist *benefits make the society that allows highly paid people who aren’t warlords to exist.
I’ll say it again, move to Somalia. There the government doesn’t do a fucking thing for you. Let me know how long you last.
Our society did not give me roads. Nor any of the obvious technological wonders of your tedious rant. The government extracted money from me and used it to build roads (oh, and to pay for the portion of all those who aren’t paying for the roads). The only way I could come out even-steven is if they only built roads where people like me pay taxes. There’s no giving involved.
Please, can you dispense with the dishonest pretense about how people who are against socialism don’t want any government services? It’s complete bullshit. I favor a social contract where I pay for roads and I get roads. Or libraries. Or whatever needs doing that we can’t do individually for ourselves. I’m just firmly in the camp that believes that medical care is something that we can and should mostly do for ourselves, and that the reason it’s so horrifically expensive and poorly rationed is because of excess government involvement, not for a lack of it.
His quality of life would be 100% better, because he’s alive. Your quality of life would decrease by a very tiny, almost unmeasurable percentage.
On the other hand, your quality of life might be better if, on your way to work, you did not have to step over the dead bodies of those who could not afford good healthcare. Or you might be OK with that. Whatever.
Unmeasurable in your opinion. What gives you the right to decide what my happiness is worth to me?
Yes. Because I do not believe that a big universal healthcare scheme will make all our lives better, that means I want to see dead people in the street and live in Somalia. :rolleyes: Why not throw in a Hitler while you’re at it there, bud.
