Medicare pays more because it deals with those over 65. You know, when people start dying. It also can’t say no to anyone (which once the reform goes though, neither will the private insurance companies).
And they count the growth per enrollee , so the amount paid doesn’t really enter into that.
Why are you imposing an unfunded mandate on small businesses to buy private health insurance?
What is your plan to ensure that private insurers covering customers between 60 & 65 actually supply care instead of delaying payment until the customer ages into Medicare?
Does this plan actually address the supply of health care–not health insurance, but actual medical services? It seems to me that rising prices are the market telling us that we need more physicians, nurses, hospital rooms, labs, etc. If health care were plentiful enough to be affordable, we wouldn’t need more than catastrophic health insurance. Why don’t you listen to what the market is telling you instead of being distracted by the organization of health-care middlemen, who are an additional profit center, & therefore drive costs up on a macro level?
(Really, I’d rather have full socialization than the Baucus plan–it’d be cheaper. Why would anyone of good faith from either side write the Baucus plan as it is, except out of pity for private insurers’ business?)
That’s a question for progressives more than for Baucus’s plan, isn’t it?
P1. No. YOU don’t understand.
There is no right ‘answer’ to my question yet, because there is no one, single bill. There are multiple bills, plus vague hand-waving from Obama, much of which is self-contradictory. If you think you know what ‘the answer’ is to any of this, you are kidding yourself. There is no ‘answer’. There is no ‘misinformation’, as the left and the MSM would like you to believe. Because there is no one, single repository of correct information to weigh it against. That’s what scares the living shit out of most reasonable people, as it should.
P2. Medicare can most certainly say no to clients. Doctors can refuse to accept Medicare patients, and many do. This is a classic example of Unintended Consequences and the government’s involvement destroying the supply-side of the equation, as ** foolsguinea ** rightly points out above.
P3. So then lets make those small changes! What do you say? Let’s go! I’m up for it!
Seriously…your answer is ‘at some point in the future we’ll raise taxes or reduce benefits’? Is this a whoosh?
Don’t you realize how ridiculous that is? That’s the problem with all government programs, sweetie. Is your answer for all of them…‘at some point in the future we’ll raise taxes’? If you’re serious, this is high comedy. And I know that’s contradictory. It’s supposed to be.
How about right now? Why don’t we raise taxes or reduce benefits right now?
Good grief.
I’m trying to explain the insurance mandate to you because you appear to be completely uninformed about it. If you don’t want to discuss the bills, go to another thread. Your questions are all easily answered, and you not knowing the answers is simply because you haven’t made the effort to listen.
Not to accept them. You’re again misunderstanding and flying off the handle. Medicare may deny a particular treatment for whatever reason, but they don’t deny people access to health care. Is that clear enough for you to understand it through your blind partisan rage?
Yes. That wasn’t in question. Do you think this is some kind of secret? What exactly are you unable to follow in this discussion?
This is a classic example of willful ignorance.
It’s currently solvent. I imagine we’ll make changes when it becomes insolvent, like Reagan did.
Of course we’ll raise taxes and/or cut benefits when Medicare and Social Security become prohibitively expensive. But they aren’t now.
I suspect if we raised taxes right now a vein in your head would pop. Hopefully you have health insurance. 
P1. Please provide a reference to a single, agreed-upon ‘insurance mandate’ by both Houses of Congress and the President. There. Go. Good luck.
P2a. and P2b. Do you realize you just contradicted yourself with these two paragraphs?
P2.i. Medicare cannot deny people access to health care.
P2.ii. Doctors can refuse to accept Medicare. Many do. (you apparently do not dispute this).
Can’t you see the contradiction between P2.i. and P2.ii. above? You’re calling me names, even as you agree with my points. Don’t you see the ridiculous position of your argument?
P3. If you define ‘solvent’ as cash-in-cash-out yearly accounting. If you do, and you’re an accountant, you will go to jail for your work. But the government waives itself from this standard.
The government doesn’t keep a balance sheet. And apparently, neither do you. Or at least you don’t understand it. Let me try and explain.
The government can
All private entities must account for the future cost of the $50 in some manner. The government does not. It simply takes $100 - $90 and claims it is ‘solvent’. And you believe this nonsense.
That’s the same as borrowing $300,000 to buy home, selecting the negative amortization option from Countrywide, and paying $500 per month on your mortgage.
Since you make $600 per month, and have a $100 per month left over, you (** Lobohan **) would claim you are ‘solvent’. But the $300,000 liability for which you are obligated to pay at some point becomes $310,000, then $325,000, then $350,000, then more.
Get it? Understand?
There is a cash flow statement, and a balance sheet. Everybody in the modern world is required to keep a balance sheet. Required by the US government. It’s the law.
Everybody except the US government, of course. They waive that requirement of themselves.
P4. God, I fear for this country’s future. Because I think 51+% of the population thinks like you.
The issue remains that not doing anything (the result of defeating reform) will lead to a bubble like the home market.
IMHO it is private industry that was “hiding” the costs to workers, if no changes are made income expenditures on health care in the U.S. are likely to rise from a current level of about 15 percent to about 29 percent of GDP in 2040.
Change is needed, but I’m afraid the Republicans and the Blue democrats are thinking just on the well being of the health insurance industry and not on the well being (economical as well as the health) of all Americans.
They haven’t decided on it yet, but the mandate is a core issue in all the bills. If you want the line by line, sorry, but I’m not from the future. They are very clear on the concept. We could go bill by bill, if you want the particulars. But being upset that they haven’t decided on the final bill yet is pretty weird.
Okay, once again.
Medicare accepts everyone who qualifies. Qualifying doesn’t depend on your current health, it depends on other things, such as how long you paid into the system. If you’re qualified for Medicare you can’t be turned down for Medicare. If you have a wad of cash in your hand (the qualification for private insurance) they can turn you down for health care based on your medical history. Get it? Medicare is more efficient and it doesn’t get to cherrypick healthy clients and has to deal with people at the end of their life.
Some doctors not accepting Medicare is in no way a denial of health care. Some doctors don’t accept Kaiser. Some doctors don’t accept Blue Cross. Are you sure you understand how the health care system in America works? If you have Medicare you go to a doctor who accepts it.
Yes. Social Security will need to be reigned back in a few decades. Medicare will have to start being reigned back near the end of next decade. More reason to modify the system now to reduce the out of control health care costs now. I know that the problems in entitlements are large, and the best way to get the kickass economy we need to make it surmountable is to ensure affordable health care for all Americans.
Do you think they aren’t aware of this?
I worry that 51+% is as blindly partisan and unthinking about things as you are.
Yes, for the moment. I think the end-game is single payer and any public option is just a small step in that direction. So, might as well start asking the questions now.
A key question to keep asking until honest answers are forthcoming:
One of the major incentives for health care reform is to control ever-increasing costs that take up a large chunk of personal and business income and hamper economic/job growth. How can the Administration fulfill its promises and not make the problem significantly worse, seeing as a number of premises used to promote cost savings are false?
For instance, preventative care has often been cited by Obama as a way to save money - when the reality is that better preventative care, while saving lives, will cost a lot more?
Similarly, mandating electronic medical records has been touted as a money saver - when in reality startup and maintenance fees (to keep systems secure, for one thing) will likely eat up all those savings and more?
Is there a plan that truly will control costs in a fair manner, and can you be honest enough to acknowledge that it cannot be financed without a general tax increase?
P1. Medicare ‘accepting’ everyone who qualifies is meaningless if you can do nothing with Medicare. If doctors do not want to accept Medicare, or if Medicare does not cover the options a patient wants, it is meaningless to say Medicare ‘accepts’ everyone.
P2. Kaiser and Blue Cross are insurance plans entered into voluntarily by consumers who choose to give them their money, and accept the terms and conditions therein. If there is increased competition (and deregulation) of the industry, other industry players can also enter, and offer policies that consumers may wish to choose, or not choose.
Medicare takes money from my paycheck involuntarily, whether I want it to or not, and makes decisions for me via government officials who I did not choose to do business with. I have no choice to ask for my Medicare $$ back, and try and shop somewhere else.
P3. Why not rein it back now? You seem to agree with me there is a problem here. Why not start now?
Idaho, you know that I respect you, though I disagree with your ideology, but this question is ridiculous.
If you or I or anyone else neglects to have health insurance and gets sick, society will still pay for us. It’s not a question of individual freedom in this case. It’s a case of setting the rules of the marketplace so that parties can’t unfairly externalize their costs.
In that case (and really these are the same question) I will say–it’s the wrong question. We aren’t proposing an overhaul just to have “change.” If all we wanted was “change”–something, anything, different–we could do something silly & unhelpful to the economy, like banning foreigners from enrolling in medical schools.
We don’t want single-payer because it’s change; we want change to single-payer because we don’t have single-payer now. What we want is single-payer or nearasdammit. Not for the sake of change, but because it allows progressive pricing.
Is a poor patient’s liver worth as much to the consumer, in dollars, as a rich man’s? No. So why should he be charged the same? Hospitals know this. And they have an ethical tradition, a craftsman’s interest, & a social/moral concern to treat those who need treated. So under the present regime, they come up with sneaky ways to charge the rich more & the poor less. Massively inflated bills at hospitals & overpriced tests of dubious necessity underwrite the free clinics & the low-cost clinics.
But in such an environment, there is a temptation to mischief. A doctor may just sell his services at inflated prices & run with it. Insurance companies sucker the populace into paying for an additional profit center[sup]1[/sup], on the theory that you can’t afford to pay for your own care, but they can pay for it out of the money you give them. :dubious::rolleyes: And then the “greedy doctors” & the “greedy insurance companies” get blamed when prices go up–even if prices go up because of actual market shortages of care.
*Here I digress into my pet theory for two paragraphs:
*
I think we have an actual general practitioner shortage; considering that we’ve been hearing, “there’s a GP shortage,” for 16 years; how hard it is to get a family doctor in my hometown; the (both growing & aging) population increasing demand; & the fact that it’s taking so long to get new med schools started (which is a government responsibility, realistically). But people–including Congress, including single-payer advocates–have convinced themselves that all they need to do is tweak health insurance. It won’t work. There will be rationing, because there is rationing now. There really is a shortage.
But making it the government’s responsibility may open some eyes. Right now, the government is responsible more maintaining the supply (by opening med schools & helping build hospitals) but happy to blame price increases on the demand side. (again, :dubious::rolleyes:) If they–the government–have to pay the inflated price, they gain a rational incentive to up the supply & get care supply to where it can meet market demand at an affordable price.
Also (back to the general progressive line) by using government rationing, we aren’t pushing out of care many more patients[sup]2[/sup] than the present “pricing out” regime, & the ones who get in aren’t bankrupted paying a high price just to get care.
And fundamentally, single-payer works. Doctors are free to doctor those who need doctoring without cooking up fraudulently inflated bills, so the sneaky “humanitarian incentive” excuse for medical fraud & overpricing goes away somewhat. And society gets medical care for all at a price all can afford. But don’t believe me; look at the track record in France (single-payer Medicare-style system with supplemental insurance available), Canada (single-payer Medicare-style system without supplemental insurance available), Great Britain (public hospitals with a–much smaller–private health care & private insurance sector available) & Germany (the relatively expensive, kludgey one with not-for-profit health insurers taking the middle incomes while the poor get care through welfare & the rich are allowed to be fleeced by for-profits–still cheaper & better-liked than ours).
Or talk to a German or Australian, who will groan at the imperfections of their (part-private) systems, & then say, “THANK GOD WE’RE NOT LIVING IN AMERICA, WHERE YOU CAN BE BANKRUPTED BY MEDICAL BILLS!” (Really, I read this on my blogroll recently.)
[sup]1[/sup] Actually two! There is an industry that exists just to negotiate between insurers & health care professionals as insurers are to negotiate between patients & health care professionals.
[sup]2[/sup] I wanted to say, “any more patients,” but let’s be honest. Socialized medicine systems on an NHS model are very dependent on good management to provide services. Single-payer on a Medicare model still relies on private caregivers, so it may avoid this better, but it’s management-dependent & policy-dependent as well. It depends on the budgeting.
I wasn’t going off on an ideological bent with that one. I was asking a legitimate question. I honestly don’t know what the objective of the current healthcare plan is supposed to be.
How much will be saved purely from reducing/eliminating profit? Percentage-wise
“…for maintaining the supply,” obviously. I was thinking about how the responsibility for the supply falls heavily on gov’t, while demand costs & are only 44% or so gov’t, & left the wrong word in.
You live in a society that considers letting you starve to death regardless of choices and chance as unacceptable. Your world is one I don’t want to be any part of, and if something unfortunate were to happen to your health or wealth I’m sure you’d change your mind.
The vast, vast vast majority of Social Security isn’t even means-tested. So it has nothing to do with avoiding death and starvation. It isn’t a welfare program, remember? FDR was very explicit in his desire to position it as a ‘retirement’ scheme.
I am all for a basic safety net that avoids death and starvation. It’s called welfare. I already pay taxes for it.
Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme, that destroys value, and that is used to placate a special-interest voting bloc of the public. And it’s non-negotiable.
That doesn’t sound like avoiding death and starvation.
And the connection between selling SS as a ‘retirement scheme’ (when most people realize it’s not…perhaps even you) and the current round of health-care hand-waving and confusing messages is intimately connected.
People just don’t trust the clowns in Washington. And I would argue that the unsustainable finances behind Social Security and Medicare (the latter which, if I remember correctly, was promised never to cost more than $4 billion when it was first launched during the Great Society days) is why people don’t trust them.
Besides, I’ve already offered above to make a $100,000 ‘gift’ to the Federal Treasury, for it to use in whatever way it sees fit.
That’s doing even more to achieve your vision of helping the poor. Why don’t you want to take me up on my offer? What logic would you use if/when you refuse that offer? It seems like a no-brainer to me.
$100,000 may seem like a lot to you or me, but I think the government’s seen bigger.
Excellent. So it won’t miss the remaining contributions from now until I retire.
I’ll keep those, and I won’t ask the government to pay me back a penny when I’m due for SS.
Deal?
