# If Not For Medicare, How Would Seniors Get Health Care? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529 "2010-02-03T15:46:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/181 "2010-02-11T19:57:56Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I’ve seen all that and asked a simple question. > What will reducing the payout to those people who TAKE Medicare do to those currently accepting Medicare? Is it magically going to grow more because the government pays less? > > Or this question: If this can be done, why hasn’t it _already_ been done to save us money to the tune of millions. > > This is why people (me included) don’t believe when the Fed says that the UHC won’t cost a thing! It’ll be saving money. > > And just to highlight: > > “Republicans have seized on Medicare Advantage cuts to accuse President Obama of fudging the truth with his oft-repeated pledge that seniors’ Medicare benefits will not be reduced. Under the health care overhaul proposals as written, traditional Medicare would still be open to all Americans age 65 and over, and the standard benefits would not change.” > > Does that or does it not say that Medicare Advantage will be cut? Is that NOT a part of Medicare? I’m assuming that is the drug plan yes? > Uh Huh. Medicare Advantage is an insurance bought from the health insurance companies that is supposed to help Medicare covered people with the part of Medical costs that Medicare does not cover. A couple weeks ago the Detroit papers showed how every single Advantage policy premium in Michigan was about to double. It is not a drug plan. But in some illnesses Medicare covers 80 percent. Obama said they would not help cover all the Advantage premiums. The insurance companies would just jack the costs out of sight if they could get the government to pay. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/182 "2010-02-11T20:48:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > When someone says, “I was lying before, but I am telling the truth now” it is real easy to get people to believe the first half, and very much harder to get them to believe the second. Interesting how selective you are about what you will and won’t believe. Perhaps instead they are lying about the first AND the second. To be honest, I haven’t a fucking clue what you are arguing about, it seems you want to repeat that Obama lied and Clinton got a blow job over and over. Did you really mean to ask, “why wasn’t Medicare fixed over the past 7 years?” I gave you a cite as to exactly why it wasn’t fixed, the guy in charge found it was more profitable for himself if he made it worse. Do you really need more reasons? I guess another reason was that Obama slacked off for 6 of those years and didn’t think of it as a priority. This also perfectly highlights how completely fucked the current political system has become. Obama said he’ll make cuts to Medicare that will cut benefits, I’m sure he had more to say but that’s as much fits in a sound bite. That gets twisted and relabeled as “Obama’s Medicare cuts will hurt seniors,” notice how perfectly that fits in sound bite, and how easily it slips off the tongue. I notice you have no problem believing that part. Then Obama tries to give a response, but it gets condensed into, “we’re not going to cut benefits.” And that gets followed by “OMG Obama LIED!” My health plan includes some weird vision coverage that I don’t use, but it’s there so it’s part of my cost. If they removed that, it would cut my costs, and cut my benefits, but it would not hurt me at all. Likewise, if I decided to get the vision insurance from my employer, I would thenb e paying for BOTH vision packages. If I cut the vision from my medical coverage, the cost of my medical would go down, and I would not lose any benefits. Remember back when Bush introduced The Surge in Iraq? Democrats were opposed to it, and needed it to fail. Why? Because that would have been a win for Bush, making Democrats look bad. So in order for Democrats to look good, they needed a damn lot of soldiers to die. The only reason Republicans are against Obamacare or HRC is because it would mean a win for Obama, and they can’t have that, even if it means millions of Americans will die in the process. Their only goal is to win in 2012, that’s it. The don’t give a fuck about America or Americans, deficits or benefits. And from their experience in 1994 they believe blocking HRC will bring about that victory. Have you stopped to consider that? The Republicans NEED health care reform to fail, and for things to get worse. They NEED the economy to get worse, for more jobs to be lost. It is in their best interest for the US to go to shit. Now considering that, why should we believe anything they say? The Democrats are currently in power, they NEED health care reform to succeed, they need job losses to stop, they need GDP to go up. It is in their best interest for things to get better. > [@Shodan](#): > > Remember Algore’s “Reinventing Government” thing? Who is Algore? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/183 "2010-02-11T21:50:06Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Interesting how selective you are about what you will and won’t believe. Perhaps instead they are lying about the first AND the second. Okay, maybe you are right - Democrats were lying when they said Medicare cuts necessarily meant cuts in benefits, \*\*and \*\* they are lying when they say they are not going to cut benefits. How does that help their case for HCR? > [@](#): > > To be honest, I haven’t a fucking clue what you are arguing about, it seems you want to repeat that Obama lied and Clinton got a blow job over and over. Considering I have not mentioned Clinton at all, it is a little rich to accuse me of repeating anything about him “over and over”. And the reason for mentioning Obama is that one cannot have it both ways. Either (as Obama claimed during the campaign) cuts in Medicare spending are the same as cuts in benefits, in which case Obama is lying when he says he won’t cut benefits. Or they are not the same, in which case I see no reason to believe anything else he says on the subject either. > [@](#): > > Did you really mean to ask, “why wasn’t Medicare fixed over the past 7 years?” I gave you a cite as to exactly why it wasn’t fixed, the guy in charge found it was more profitable for himself if he made it worse. And I gave you a letter from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office saying that it would not have saved significant money. You know - the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The one the lefties hereabouts like to cite for their claim that Obamacare won’t increase the budget deficit. And it won’t - if Congress makes the cuts that they haven’t made for the last seven years, including the two years when Democrats controlled Congress. And yet, I am supposed to believe they are going to do it this time. Uh-_huh_. > [@](#): > > Obama said he’ll make cuts to Medicare that will cut benefits, He actually said exactly the opposite - that he would **not** cut benefits. > [@](#): > > The only reason Republicans are against Obamacare or HRC is because it would mean a win for Obama, and they can’t have that, even if it means millions of Americans will die in the process. Their only goal is to win in 2012, that’s it. The don’t give a fuck about America or Americans, deficits or benefits. And from their experience in 1994 they believe blocking HRC will bring about that victory. > > Have you stopped to consider that? The Republicans NEED health care reform to fail, and for things to get worse. They NEED the economy to get worse, for more jobs to be lost. It is in their best interest for the US to go to shit. Now considering that, why should we believe anything they say? > > The Democrats are currently in power, they NEED health care reform to succeed, they need job losses to stop, they need GDP to go up. It is in their best interest for things to get better. So we should have believed everything the Republicans said from 2000 - 2006, right? After all, and it was in their best interest for the country to get better. Except things didn’t turn out too well, especially in 2008 and thereabouts. Sure, maybe the Dems need HCR to succeed, or they will wind up looking pretty damned stupid. And (God wililng) lose control of Congress, or at least lose the huge margin they enjoy now. But that is no guarantee that their ideas on HCR will succeed. It is entirely possible for them to be badly wrong on the whole matter. And I am sure the Republicans would love it if the whole thing blew up in Obama’s face, as it seems to be doing. But neither party wants the other to succeed, in power or out of it. So we can ignore that whole end of it. Both parties want to get control of the government, so they can bring about their ideas. What we do, then, is discuss the ideas on their merits. Is it plausible that Congress can find enough “waste” in Medicare to make significant cuts without affecting seniors? I doubt it, although it could happen. Could they make enough cuts to make a difference? Sure, although reducing reimbursements to health care providers is going to make it that much harder to find a doctor who will treat you at a loss. Did you know, for example, that last year, t[he Mayo Clinic lost $840 million on its Medicare patients?](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/06/medicare_and_the_mayo_clinic/) How do you think increasing those losses will affect their eagerness to sign up a whole big batch of new Medicare patients as the population ages? Is it plausible, that Congress will cut Medicare? Well, then we return to the question asked earlier but never answered - if they were going to make the cuts they say they are going to make, why haven’t they made the cuts they said they were going to make for the last seven years running, including the time when Dems controlled Congress with a filibuster-proof majority? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/184 "2010-02-11T22:27:13Z")
There is a shit load of fraud in Medicare . The docs and clinics get together and charge for procedures they do not do. That kind of stuff can be rooted out, but it is expensive to locate and prosecute. Medicare needs to expand to cover a larger and healthier demographic. The insurance companied will insure anyone who is unlikely to get sick. When you age, they jettison you off to the government and Americans wonder why Medicare is expensive. It should be made more encompassing. It is a good system and we should expand it across all age groups. The Mayo Clinic pays it’s doctors a salary, a good one. The doctors have no pressure to crank out patients. it is one of the best clinics in the world. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/185 "2010-02-11T22:37:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And the reason for mentioning Obama is that one cannot have it both ways. Either (as Obama claimed during the campaign) cuts in Medicare spending are the same as cuts in benefits, in which case Obama is lying when he says he won’t cut benefits. Or they are not the same, in which case I see no reason to believe anything else he says on the subject either. > Regards, > Shodan Perhaps there is another, more likely scenario: You first decided that you won’t believe anything Obama says, then he said something. Or maybe Occam was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Hodiggity1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/da6949/32.png) [@Hodiggity1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hodiggity1)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/186 "2010-02-11T23:48:57Z")
Coming in from a more detached POV… As a moderate that: - is fiscally conservative, socially liberal - voted for Clinton, Gore, and Obama - supports HCR, and initially supported the HCR bill - and is tired of the highly partisan atmosphere in Washington today I find the conservative’s arguments more compelling in this thread. While I might not necessarily agree with a HCR plan that they (the conservatives) put forward, I feel like I haven’t heard a strong argument against it that didn’t devolve into appeals to emotion or accusations of political bickering from the liberal side. I am concerned about growing the entitlements. I am also concerned with existing entitlements, tort reform, and aligning the costs of care with the stakeholders/consumers of the care. In order to find realistic solutions to these problems, I think that the conservative’s points made in this thread need to be addressed with calm, logical counterpoints from the liberal side, which I really don’t feel has been done yet. I do think that this will affect how I view the issue and vote in the future, as well as frame my arguments to people that I am close to. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/187 "2010-02-12T00:33:38Z")
> [@Hodiggity1](#): > > Coming in from a more detached POV… > > As a moderate that: > > - is fiscally conservative, socially liberal > - voted for Clinton, Gore, and Obama > - supports HCR, and initially supported the HCR bill > - and is tired of the highly partisan atmosphere in Washington today > > I find the conservative’s arguments more compelling in this thread. While I might not necessarily agree with a HCR plan that they (the conservatives) put forward, I feel like I haven’t heard a strong argument against it that didn’t devolve into appeals to emotion or accusations of political bickering from the liberal side. > > I am concerned about growing the entitlements. I am also concerned with existing entitlements, tort reform, and aligning the costs of care with the stakeholders/consumers of the care. In order to find realistic solutions to these problems, I think that the conservative’s points made in this thread need to be addressed with calm, logical counterpoints from the liberal side, which I really don’t feel has been done yet. > > I do think that this will affect how I view the issue and vote in the future, as well as frame my arguments to people that I am close to. Are you concerned that the constant raising of insurance rates, while denying coverage already paid, for is evil. Our present system is unsustainable. The cost of insurance outstrips inflation by many times. The concept of putting the health care system on the backs of employers is detrimental to our ability to compete. There is nothing to defend our system. it is rated 37th best in the world and costs double. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/188 "2010-02-12T00:37:32Z")
> [@Hodiggity1](#): > > I find the conservative’s arguments more compelling in this thread. While I might not necessarily agree with a HCR plan that they (the conservatives) put forward, I feel like I haven’t heard a strong argument against it that didn’t devolve into appeals to emotion or accusations of political bickering from the liberal side. Can you refresh my memory with a couple of cites that delineate the conservative HCR plan. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/189 "2010-02-12T02:03:25Z")
My summary of the conservative case: 1. Retirement health insurance should be provided by employers, the way current health insurance is provided. There are several counters to that. a) Considering how view employers currently offer health benefits, I see it as unlikely that they would be eager to offer further coverage. Without appealing to emotion, this will most specifically hurt lower income earners who already struggle to find jobs that provide health coverage. There are a lot of people that work multiple part time jobs to make the basic $30k a year, and those jobs rarely offer benefits. It also brings up the cost per employee, meaning that companies will have more incentive to give full-time hours to part-time employees, allowing them to avoid providing benefits. They will also hire more contractors. The logical end point would be a dramatic increase in the need for unions going back to the 1850s in order to protect workers. If we are all dependent on our employers for retirement health coverage, the stakes go up dramatically. b) As seen with Ford recently, the burden of caring for multiple generations of retired employees is crippling, and drastically reduces a company’s ability to compete globally. It may seem like a great short term plan, but think 4 generations down the road, when we have the next Moderate Depression. Unless you think that more countries will scrap their UHC, it only seems logical that in 15 years the US will be the only country left with a private-for-profit health care industry based on employer coverage retirement health plans. c) There is a huge risk that companies will get bought out, or go bankrupt, before you die. So then what? d) Makes it even harder for small business and entrepreneurs to compete. e) The insurance concept fails when it is applied to health care. The people that need health care are the sick, but they can’t (or shouldn’t) be insured, and they are less likely to be able to work full time. Why would insurance cover someone they know will cost them money? It just doesn’t work that way. A person with AIDS will cost about $25,000 a year. A year of cancer treatment can be around $300,000. Why would an insurance company offer a policy to someone that they know will cost them money? 1. People should include health care expenses as part of their retirement plan. a) Given the dramatic increase in health care costs, I don’t see how this is feasible. 30 years ago who could have accurately predicted how much they would need to save to be able to afford cancer treatment at age 70? Like I said above, a year of cancer treatment will cost about $300,000, and you’re chances of getting cancer are insanely high. It will simply lead to more health care related bankruptcies. 1. Old people should die sooner. a) I have no counter to this that isn’t an appeal to emotion, but this would certainly clear up a lot of issues. 1. Obama lied and we can never trust him again. a) It might be easier to just not have presidents any more. Reagan lied about Iran-CONTRA. Bush 41 broke my heart when he said, “No new taxes.” Then Clinton got a blow job, and lied right to our faces about it. Bush 43 told us Iraq had WMDs and was connected to Al qaeda, and that Brownie did a heckofa job. And now Obama said he wasn’t going to cut Medicare benefits and then cut Medicare benefits. I just can’t bare to go through it again. Palin won’t be president until 2012 and she’s lies every time she opens her mouth. ---
**Author:** ![Hodiggity1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/da6949/32.png) [@Hodiggity1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hodiggity1)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/190 "2010-02-12T17:58:49Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Are you concerned that the constant raising of insurance rates, while denying coverage already paid, for is evil. Our present system is unsustainable. The cost of insurance outstrips inflation by many times. The concept of putting the health care system on the backs of employers is detrimental to our ability to compete. There is nothing to defend our system. it is rated 37th best in the world and costs double. I agree that HCR needs to be done, but I look at the current bill (at least what I know about it, from listening to Maddow/Stewart, as well as NPR shows like Planet Money) and I don’t think that I can support it. I think that is because of the issues raised by people like Bricker, whose points I agree with. In my own head, I am trying to reconcile those concerns with the proposals I see. ---
**Author:** ![Hodiggity1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/da6949/32.png) [@Hodiggity1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hodiggity1)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/191 "2010-02-12T18:09:24Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > Can you refresh my memory with a couple of cites that delineate the conservative HCR plan. Whose conservative HCR plan? The conservative, as is represented by the Republican party? Or the conservative posters in this thread? The Republicans is easy - [http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm](http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm), but I don’t necessarily agree with it so I will not be arguing for it. It seems like the conservative posters here are having a dialogue about their concerns. Like Bricker said - as the ones wanting to change the status quo, it’s up to us (I include myself in this) to propose a solution that takes into account those concerns. This is important to me, because I share a lot of the same concerns. At the same time, I do believe we should have some sort of safety net. Surely there can be some compromise between the two ideologies, right? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/192 "2010-02-12T19:01:32Z")
> [@Hodiggity1](#): > > This is important to me, because I share a lot of the same concerns. At the same time, I do believe we should have some sort of safety net. Surely there can be some compromise between the two ideologies, right? Unfortunately there is no compromise between the two ideaologies. UHC/HCR is going to require some form of taxation, and will necessarily mean a redistribution of wealth. There will be people “gaming” the system by paying in less then they receive. This is at direct odds with “conservatives” who are against taxation, and any form of wealth redistribution (except for military). To them there is no compromise on the matter. Secondly, UHC/HCR is going to require some form of government involvement, and some form of regulation. This is against the conservative mantra of “small government.” To them, the government cannot be trusted to run programs (other than the military). There is no compromise on this issue. Lastly, UHC/HCR will mean less money for Big Business. A lot of people make a lot of money off the US health care system. Having the government intervene, causing a loss of revenue for Big Business, is in direct contrast with the ideology of free markets. In a less snarky way of saying things, the concept of UHC and HCR involves providing medical care to people that are either unable to afford it (and I don’t mean poor, I mean people without $300,000 for cancer treatment), or are unable to get it (people with preexisting conditions that are ineligible). The free market says they shouldn’t get it, and who are we do argue with the free market? That might have ended up being more snarky than I intended. From everything I’ve read on this board, the conservative answer to HCR is: 1.) Get a job that provides health coverage. 2.) Die ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/193 "2010-02-12T19:02:10Z")
> [@Hodiggity1](#): > > Whose conservative HCR plan? The conservative, as is represented by the Republican party? Or the conservative posters in this thread? > > The Republicans is easy - [http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm](http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm), but I don’t necessarily agree with it so I will not be arguing for it. > > It seems like the conservative posters here are having a dialogue about their concerns. Like Bricker said - as the ones wanting to change the status quo, it’s up to us (I include myself in this) to propose a solution that takes into account those concerns. This is important to me, because I share a lot of the same concerns. At the same time, I do believe we should have some sort of safety net. Surely there can be some compromise between the two ideologies, right? And for whatever it’s worth, I’m not unalterably opposed to some safety net. I am opposed to any notion that begins to treat health care as a right, an expectation, an entitlement that derives simply from living in this society. And not to nitpick, but I didn’t say it’s up to you (in the indefinite sense) to propose a solution that takes my concerns into account. You could come up with a solution that completely ignores them, assuming you (again, the indefinite you) have the votes to carry the day. But as the side seeking the change in status quo, the burden of persuasion of some kind does lie with you. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/194 "2010-02-12T19:23:34Z")
[Top five health insurers posted 56 percent profit gains in 2009 - Raw Story](http://rawstory.com/2010/02/top-health-insurers-posted-57-percent-profit-gains-2009/) As soon as you think that health of people is a for profit business opportunity. It ends up with the abusive system we have now,. Poor care withholding treatment and huge and increasing prices. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/195 "2010-02-12T19:37:40Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Top five health insurers posted 56 percent profit gains in 2009](http://rawstory.com/2010/02/top-health-insurers-posted-57-percent-profit-gains-2009/) As soon as you think that health of people is a for profit business opportunity. It ends up with the abusive system we have now,. Poor care withholding treatment and huge and increasing prices. What percentage profit gains did other industries have in that same time period? ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/196 "2010-02-12T20:01:57Z")
> [@Hodiggity1](#): > > Whose conservative HCR plan? The conservative, as is represented by the Republican party? Or the conservative posters in this thread? > > The Republicans is easy - [http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm](http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm), but I don’t necessarily agree with it so I will not be arguing for it. That’s not a plan, it’s a platform and a lot of platitudes. Don’t have time for much, but I don’t see how the below helps those who can’t afford insurance or can’t get it at any price. You get a tax credit on the insurance you can’t afford to buy in the first place. They are going to “urge” insurance companies to make the right medical coverage decisions. W00t. > [@](#): > > The current tax system discriminates against individuals who do not receive health care from their employers, gives more generous health tax benefits to upper income employees, and fails to provide every American with the ability to purchase an affordable health care plan. Republicans propose to correct inequities in the current tax code that drive up the number of uninsured and to level the playing field so that individuals who choose a health insurance plan in the individual market face no tax penalty. All Americans should receive the same tax benefit as those who are insured through work, whether through a tax credit or other means. > > Individuals with pre-existing conditions must be protected; we will help these individuals by building on the experiences of innovative states rather than by creating a new unmanageable federal entitlement. We strongly urge that managed care organizations use the practice patterns and medical treatment guidelines from the state in which the patient lives when making medical coverage decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/197 "2010-02-12T20:18:01Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Top five health insurers posted 56 percent profit gains in 2009](http://rawstory.com/2010/02/top-health-insurers-posted-57-percent-profit-gains-2009/) As soon as you think that health of people is a for profit business opportunity. It ends up with the abusive system we have now,. Poor care withholding treatment and huge and increasing prices. OH, NOES!!! PROFITS WENT UP 56%!!! IT’S HORRID!!! IT’S EVIIIIL, IS WHAT IT IS!!! Ahem, the more rational of us will realize that this means they went from an average of 3% profit to somewhere around 4.5% profit. Which of course also means that 95.5% of the money they took in actually went to providing – wait for it – health care! Then, your funky little article goes on to point out that this increase came even as people were losing jobs, as though this meant the increase was even more unconscionable. More rational minds will realize that companies are not required, nor expected, nor even able, to gear their profits to be in line with unemployment. So that’s a wash. And then we have the following whinge: _"_ The five largest insurance firms firms made $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008."\* Again, more rational minds will realize that this figure isn’t as significant as it sounds, and in real terms represents very little in the way of reducing health care costs, even for its own policy holders. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that these health care insurance companies earned an average of as much as 6% net profit. This means that they took in roughly $203 billion in payments from their policy holders. It also means that if they were to decide to forego profits entirely and operate just out of the good of their hearts, their policy holders (and remember, this is their policy holders only, not the American public in its entirety) would realize reductions of 6% in their policy payments…or in other words, a $30 reduction in monthly premiums of $500. So you can see, while $12.2 billion may sound like a lot of money, in real terms it’s practically insignificant. Virtually everything about that article is couched in terms intended to inflame people against health insurance companies, but in real terms it says practically nothing. And besides, people profit from govenment programs too. Their employees make salaries and receive benefits and pensions, etc., (which are often more generous than those provided by the private sector). And drug companies and technology companies and doctors and nurses the makers of plastic tubing and syringes, etc., all still have to make money, and that money is their profit for what they do. So the only difference profit makes is that shareholders and management get a small percentage of return on investment, a return whose forfeit is insignificant, as I explained above, in terms of providing reduced costs or increased treatments for even their own policy holders, much less the public in general. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/198 "2010-02-12T20:54:41Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > OH, NOES!!! PROFITS WENT UP 56%!!! IT’S HORRID!!! > > IT’S EVIIIIL, IS WHAT IT IS!!! Just so we’re clear, this was addressed [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=549571) The idea that profits are the problem is misleading, but that doesn’t mean you get to spew nonsense in return. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Ahem, the more rational of us will realize that this means they went from an average of 3% profit to somewhere around 4.5% profit. Which of course also means that 95.5% of the money they took in actually went to providing – wait for it – health care! Well, no, that is not what it means. A chunk of that 95.5% did not go to, wait for it, health care. Some of it went to [fancy head quarters](http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/SocialResponsibility/Environment.aspx?id=98753f7c-50ff-4024-b213-68ee735c5bfe) and to reducing their carbon footprint. Some of it went to administration costs. Legal fees. Executive compensation. Health insurance for their employees, which I guess is kind of like providing health care, except its for the employees and not for the paying clients. Oh, and advertising, some of the that 95.5% went to advertising. I don’t have proof, but I’m sure some of it has to be spent on lobbying. And like most companies I’m sure they have a charitable foundation. It was misleading of you to suggest that 95.5% went to health care. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And then we have the following whinge: > > _"_ The five largest insurance firms firms made $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008."\* > > Again, more rational minds will realize that this figure isn’t as significant as it sounds, Why isn’t $12.2 billion significant? If the federal government proposed a program to spend $12.2 billion would you be so callous? That $12.2billion is about 10% of what Medicaid costs in 2004. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > and in real terms represents very little in the way of reducing health care costs, even for its own policy holders. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that these health care insurance companies earned an average of as much as 6% net profit. This means that they took in roughly $203 billion in payments from their policy holders. It also means that if they were to decide to forego profits entirely and operate just out of the good of their hearts, their policy holders (and remember, this is their policy holders only, not the American public in its entirety) would realize reductions of 6% in their policy payments…or in other words, a $30 reduction in monthly premiums of $500. I would very much like to have that $30 back in my pocket instead of theirs. If $30 is so insignificant, surely you wouldn’t mind paying an extra $30 increase on your taxes? Crap, I just realized you said monthly! That’s $360 back in my pocket! Do you really consider that insignificant? > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > So you can see, while $12.2 billion may sound like a lot of money, in real terms it’s practically insignificant. No, it is still very significant. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Virtually everything about that article is couched in terms intended to inflame people against health insurance companies, but in real terms it says practically nothing. Welcome to the health care debate. It is much easier to inflame people than to educate them. So in terms of real numbers. If, as you said, those companies become non-profit, that $12.2billion would provide 15million people with an $800 a year high deductible plan like mine. That’s a big step towards covering that 50million uninsured. ---
**Author:** ![Hodiggity1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/da6949/32.png) [@Hodiggity1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hodiggity1)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/199 "2010-02-12T21:44:17Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Unfortunately there is no compromise between the two ideaologies. UHC/HCR is going to require some form of taxation, and will necessarily mean a redistribution of wealth. There will be people “gaming” the system by paying in less then they receive. This is at direct odds with “conservatives” who are against taxation, and any form of wealth redistribution (except for military). To them there is no compromise on the matter. > > Secondly, UHC/HCR is going to require some form of government involvement, and some form of regulation. This is against the conservative mantra of “small government.” To them, the government cannot be trusted to run programs (other than the military). There is no compromise on this issue. > > Lastly, UHC/HCR will mean less money for Big Business. A lot of people make a lot of money off the US health care system. Having the government intervene, causing a loss of revenue for Big Business, is in direct contrast with the ideology of free markets. > > In a less snarky way of saying things, the concept of UHC and HCR involves providing medical care to people that are either unable to afford it (and I don’t mean poor, I mean people without $300,000 for cancer treatment), or are unable to get it (people with preexisting conditions that are ineligible). The free market says they shouldn’t get it, and who are we do argue with the free market? That might have ended up being more snarky than I intended. > > From everything I’ve read on this board, the conservative answer to HCR is: > 1.) Get a job that provides health coverage. > 2.) Die So you’re saying that there can be no compromise. Then I, as a self-proclaimed moderate, am falling more on the side of the conservative point of view at this time, with the current health care proposal. And I think the polls are showing that I am not the only one. ---
**Author:** ![Hodiggity1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/da6949/32.png) [@Hodiggity1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hodiggity1)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529/200 "2010-02-12T21:48:12Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > That’s not a plan, it’s a platform and a lot of platitudes. Don’t have time for much, but I don’t see how the below helps those who can’t afford insurance or can’t get it at any price. You get a tax credit on the insurance you can’t afford to buy in the first place. They are going to “urge” insurance companies to make the right medical coverage decisions. W00t. Are you trying to get me to argue for it? I already said I don’t support it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-for-medicare-how-would-seniors-get-health-care/527529.md?page=11)