Single Payer Universal Health Care



On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:53:14 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:205sc.53060$hH.995373@bgtnsc04-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>> >
>> > Skeptic wrote:
>> >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but
>> >> let me try to
>> > <snipped for brevity)
>> >
>> > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
>> > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
>> > of prepaid health plans.
>> >
>> > The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide
>> > most of the health care in the US is incredibly
>> > inefficient.
>> >
>> >
>> And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs
>> are computed very differently for government and private
>> entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they
>> are very close.
>>
>
>Plus, if you look at the federal budget, you will discover
>that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread
>over several different line items.

Which is all paid for, btw, not like the
administration's current spending and wanting to borrow
from it from SS either.
 
On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:43:43 -0700, "Proconsul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
>|
>| "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>| news:[email protected]...
>| >
>| >
>| > Skeptic wrote:
>| > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but
>| > > let me try to
>| > <snipped for brevity)
>| >
>| > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
>| > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
>| > of prepaid health plans.
>|
>| Any thoughts as to why?
>
>It's not a fraction of prepaid health plans.....Medicare,
>like any government bureaucracy, lives on excessive
>paperwork managed by hordes of overpaid civil servants.
>They just conveniently report whatever part of the cost
>they want to report....just as those who champion single
>payer don't tell you that all too often care is rationed
>and unavailable to many....another way of keeping costs
>down. I prefer the private sector and open competition -
>whenever you have a free market and competition, quality
>goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori truth.....
>
>PC
>
I prefer a private system if it were possible.

Anyone that thinks our current system is open competition
has no concept how things really operate.Price fixing is not
only common but if a doc cuts prices he will suffer.

Medical school enrollment is strictly controlled. If a rule
is made to prohibit this, they allow more entry students but
increase flunk rates.

The real problem is the greedy human race that is power and
money crazy. We all destroy more than enough to provide a
decent system.

Then, we come up with all sort of rationalizations and
excuses. The answer is to keep the mess we have where some
do quite well and others are abused. But we get on our high
horse and talk about morality. What morality? .

All I can say about medical care is---

The docs are the best we have, better than charlatans.

But in my opinion it is poor and filled with mistakes.

Medical care is dominated by hustlers and too much spent of
advertising and bull ****.

Those associated with it will defend it with any excuse
they can find.

Just like the rest of society. Slavery has not ended but has
a new costume. Th masters exploit our weaknesses to gain
economic advantage.

Yes in many ways medicare stinks too. It is run by humans.
 
On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:43:43 -0700, "Proconsul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
>|
>| "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>| news:[email protected]...
>| >
>| >
>| > Skeptic wrote:
>| > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but
>| > > let me try to
>| > <snipped for brevity)
>| >
>| > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
>| > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
>| > of prepaid health plans.
>|
>| Any thoughts as to why?
>
>It's not a fraction of prepaid health plans.....Medicare,
>like any government bureaucracy, lives on excessive
>paperwork managed by hordes of overpaid civil servants.

Actually, as Stan posted already, the overpaid and
overpaperworked people are i nthe private sector, the HMO's.
Lower percentage means lower cost.

They just conveniently report whatever part of the
>cost they want to report....just as those who champion
>single payer don't tell you that all too often care is
>rationed and unavailable to many.

Wow, just like now, except worse.

...another way of keeping costs down. I prefer the private
sector and
>open competition - whenever you have a free market and
>competition, quality goes up and costs go down....that's an
>a priori truth.....

LOL, we've been trying it that way for years. now we have
the highest health care costs and lowest delivery in the
world. Step aside, dinosaur, your time has passed. Time for
new ways and methods to try.

>
>PC
 
MuscleMan wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:16:46 GMT, mike gray
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> Skeptic wrote:
>>>> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but
>>>> let me try to
>>> <snipped for brevity)
>>>
>>> You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
>>> Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
>>> of prepaid health plans.
>>>
>>> The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide
>>> most of the health care in the US is incredibly
>>> inefficient.
>>>
>>>
>>And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs
>>are computed very differently for government and private
>>entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they
>>are very close.
>
>
> Cite?

Private company 10Ks and the federal budget.
 
"Brooks Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:205sc.53060$hH.995373@bgtnsc04-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Ted Rosenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > Skeptic wrote:
> > >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but
> > >> let me try to
> > > <snipped for brevity)
> > >
> > > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
> > > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
> > > of prepaid health plans.
> > >
> > > The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide
> > > most of the
health
> > > care in the US is incredibly inefficient.
> > >
> > >
> > And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs
> > are computed very differently for government and private
> > entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they
> > are very close.
> >
>
> Plus, if you look at the federal budget, you will discover
> that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread
> over several different line items.
>

This is one of the standard rants of those who are against
universal health care. They all claim that there are
mystery costs not accounted for by government. It is like
the Sierra Club claiming that the true cost of gasolene is
$15 a gallon.
 
"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Ercsc.19015$PU5.11968@fed1read06...
>
> "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
> |
> | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
> | message news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | >
> | > Skeptic wrote:
> | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point,
> | > > but let me try to
> | > <snipped for brevity)
> | >
> | > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
> | > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
> | > of prepaid health plans.
> |
> | Any thoughts as to why?
>
> It's not a fraction of prepaid health plans.....Medicare,
> like any government bureaucracy, lives on excessive
> paperwork managed by hordes of overpaid civil servants.
> They just conveniently report whatever part of
the
> cost they want to report....

You are like the Sierra Club claiming that the true
cost of gasoline is $15 a gallon because true costs
are not computed. What you are doing is claiming that
all government data is a lie, and you and only you
know the truth.
 
In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <[email protected]> wrote:

: "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
: |
: | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
: | message news:[email protected]...
: | >
: | >
: | > Skeptic wrote:
: | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point,
: | > > but let me try to
: | > <snipped for brevity)
: | >
: | > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
: | > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
: | > of prepaid health plans.
: |
: | Any thoughts as to why?

: It's not a fraction of prepaid health plans.....Medicare,
: like any government bureaucracy, lives on excessive
: paperwork managed by hordes of overpaid civil servants.
: They just conveniently report whatever part of the cost
: they want to report....just as those who champion single
: payer don't tell you that all too often care is rationed
: and unavailable to many....another way of keeping costs
: down. I prefer the private sector and open competition -
: whenever you have a free market and competition, quality
: goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori truth.....

: PC

And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are forced?

Wendy
 
On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:51:52 GMT, "Evelyn Ruut"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Bob Blaylock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:BobHatesSpam-
>[email protected]...
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>,
>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with
>> > cash or what can be begged.
>>
>> Just like food, clothing, shelter, automobiles,
>> gasoline, and all the other material things in life.
>> None of these things are free. Someone, somewhere, has
>> to pay for everything.
>>
>> What you want is to be able to receive "free" medical
>> care, paid for by others. It doesn't work that way.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>Nothing is free but maybe the air.
>
>Medical care is all paid for....by SOMEBODY. It would be
>nice if that was laid out in a more fair way, instead of
>overcharging those who have insurance and those who do pay
>for their care, to make up for those who do not.

Interesting.

I have insurance.

If the hospital charges $5000.00 U$ and my insurance company
says they cover only 4000.00 of that and my copay is 15.00
or 50.00(when admitted to hospital) I do not pay the
difference.

"who does?"

when I had no insurance and did not qualify for any
financial aid from the state, if the bill was 5000.00 I paid
all 5000.00, granted over time on monthly payments.

who really pays?

the uninsured.

Mâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State of
Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with
strife and terrorism.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."

...Theodore Roosevelt

Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004?

NO C-heney NO A-shcroft NO R-umsfeld NO B-ush
 
In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <[email protected]> wrote:
> Make a single payer universal health care system and all
> the prices will go down.

There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer' system that
doesn't have shortages and long delays for complex
treatments such as surgery, etc.
 
"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Ercsc.19015$PU5.11968@fed1read06...
>
> "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
> |
> | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
> | message news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | >
> | > Skeptic wrote:
> | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point,
> | > > but let me try to
> | > <snipped for brevity)
> | >
> | > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
> | > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead
> | > of prepaid health plans.
> |
> | Any thoughts as to why?
>
> It's not a fraction of prepaid health plans.....Medicare,
> like any government bureaucracy, lives on excessive
> paperwork managed by hordes of overpaid civil servants.
> They just conveniently report whatever part of
the
> cost they want to report....just as those who champion
> single payer don't tell you that all too often care is
> rationed and unavailable to many....another way of keeping
> costs down. I prefer the private sector and open
> competition - whenever you have a free market and
> competition,
quality
> goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori truth.....

So one reason is that we probably have inaccurate figures to
calculate the costs. I agree that is almost certainly true.
I think there are many other reasons such a difference may
exist - and suffice it to say it does advance the cause of
promoting a single payer system.

I think to have a discussion on this (and let's face it,
aside from Ilena's rants on breast implants, this has been
the overwhelming topic of debate here for years), we need to
analyze the information people throw, as you did above,
rather than just accept the information as gospel.
 
"Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
| "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
| in message
|

<snip>

| There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly as
| the AMA.
|
| Doctors make too much money, insurance companies make too
| much money too.
|
| The system is broke and we end users are the casualties.
| Too bad.
|
| WE pay for the uninsured and the indigent ANYWAY, but
| nobody wants to
admit
| it. Make a single payer universal health care system and
| all the prices will go down.

Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is
approved, prices, i.e., TAXES, will go way up and quality of
service along with availability of service will go way down
as care is rationed to lower costs......that's the way it's
worked everywhere else in the world where it's been tried.

Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior to
any other system so far devised by anyone.....and we need to
focus on what we KNOW works.....a free market with
competition and no government interference is the key to
lower costs and higher quality care - that's the way it's
always worked whenever it's been tried.....

PC
 
"Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yuvsc.19430$af3.1017482@attbi_s51...
|
| "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:j7fsc.20884$PU5.697@fed1read06...
| >
| > "Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
| > | message news:[email protected]
| > | le.com...
| > |
| > | > It will need to tax the **** out of hard working
| > | > America to pay for **** they neither want or need
| > | > and limit access to the things they really want and
| > | > need.
| > | >
| > | > All so the 42 million uninsured can get insurance?
| > | > Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to subsidize poor
| > | > peoples insurance premiums rather than drag all of
| > | > us into a system that has not worked well in any
| > | > country?
| > |
| > |
| > | Just happened upon this thread.
| > |
| > | FYI we are ALREADY paying for those who have no
| > | insurance. That is
why
| > | medical expenses are so over inflated now. Poor and
| > | non-paying, non-insured people get medical care just
| > | like those who have
insurance.
| > |
| > | Our insurance premiums are higher than they should be,
| > | and our medical expenses are higher than they should
| > | be.... it is necessary in order
to
| > pay
| > | for those who don't have insurance.
| > |
| > | Better it should be upfront and honest and available
| > | to everybody.
| >
| > You've nailed it! Dead bang right!
|
| You sure? Have you seen cost estimates of taking care of
| the uninsured
in
| ER type settings or other "emergencies" vs. costs of
| providing care for these people? Though I don't have any
| data, I strongly doubt it will cost less to provide
| total, upfront care for all than it does now on emergency
| bases. However, you have a very valid point that we are
| already paying
for
| the uninsured. This is a great reason for the immediate
| institution of mandatory health insurance.

It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of providing
"free medical" to illegal aliens for openers and also for
letting legitimate charities - privately financed - handle
the indigent.

We need to focus on the difference between the two types of
indigents, the unwilling and the unable. A compassionate
society has always taken care of the unable, that's what
charity....private charity....is about. The unwilling
deserve nothing from anyone. Government has no place in
either venue and forced taxation is wrong no matter how
"noble" the cause.....!

PC
 
"Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > message news:[email protected]
> > > le.com...
> > >
> > > > It will need to tax the **** out of hard working
> > > > America to pay for **** they neither want or need
> > > > and limit access to the things they really want and
> > > > need.
> > > >
> > > > All so the 42 million uninsured can get insurance?
> > > > Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to subsidize poor
> > > > peoples insurance premiums rather than drag all of
> > > > us into a system that has not worked well in any
> > > > country?
> > >
> > >
> > > Just happened upon this thread.
> > >
> > > FYI we are ALREADY paying for those who have no
> > > insurance.
> >
> > We are NOT paying for their insurance - we are paying
> > for their health care. The argument on one side (the
> > SPUC side) goes that these folk don't get any health
> > care. The argument on the other side (the private sector
> > insurance promoters) is that they get health care and
> > are typically free riders.
> >
> > My prefernce is that there are no free riders and that
> > reasonable accdess to services is made possible for
> > everyone - without the Feds owning the system.
> >
> > > That is why medical expenses are so over inflated now.
> > > Poor and non-paying, non-insured people get medical
> > > care just like those who have insurance.
> >
> > Maybe not quite the same but certainly it is more than
> > no care as the SPUCers want you to believe.
> >
> > > Our insurance premiums are higher than they should be,
> > > and our medical expenses are higher than they should
> > > be.... it is necessary in order to
> pay
> > > for those who don't have insurance.
> >
> > Insurance premiums include the cost of uncompensated
> > care. Whether or not premiums are higher than they
> > "should" be is a completely different question.
> >
> > > Better it should be upfront and honest and available
> > > to everybody.
> >
> > Insurance - yes.
> >
> > js
>
> The profit motive works well in our society for everything
> but in the area of health care.

Explain how market competition based models are inefficient
for health care.

> I don't think insurance companies have your good health as
> their motive, they have getting your money as their
> motive, and paying out as little of it as they can get
> away with.

Of course they have your good health as an objective - well
people don't get hospitalized.

> Doctors ditto.

Prove it with data.

> Doctors claim their malpractice insurance costs are
> astronomical, and they probably are.

If you are an OB GYN you are paying 100K plus.

> They should clean up their own house first and crack down
> on inadequate doctors whose screwups cause high payouts,
> and then their insurance premiums would be lower.

So, only bad doctors are sued?

> Try suggesting THAT to your doctor.

it has been

> There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly as
> the AMA.

Sure, you probably want to meet Georgy. By the way, about a
third of docs are actually members of AMA.

> Doctors make too much money, insurance companies make too
> much money too.

You make too much money - give me some.

> The system is broke and we end users are the casualties.
> Too bad.

To bad - I'd suggest planning for the future.

> WE pay for the uninsured and the indigent ANYWAY, but
> nobody wants to admit
> it. Make a single payer universal health care system and
> all the prices will go down.

Yeh - right along with the quality, access, and
responsiveness.

Do your homework - start with the fiasco called the NHS.
Next, look at the resounding success of the VA and Medicare.

Now, tell me again how a single pauer system is supposed to
be better?

js
 
"Evelyn Ruut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...

> The profit motive works well in our society for everything
> but in the area of health care.

Why should that be? What's so unique about health care?

> I don't think insurance companies have your good health as
> their motive, they have getting your money as their
> motive, and paying out as little of
it
> as they can get away with.

And your local supermarket does not have your satisfied
appetite as its motive. But we have a wonderful array of
food choices at very low cost (except where the government
deliberately props up prices). Of course, if the government
took over the supermarkets because some people don't get
enough to eat and had everyone issued pre-paid food stamps
and you didn't actually pay for the food you "bought," how
long do you think we would have such cheap food in such
great variety?

> Doctors ditto.

Actually, doctors probably are more altruistic than any
service providers you are likely to run into. I sure would
never put up with the **** many of them have to. How many
other people are required by law to provide service to
someone he knows will never pay him? Ordinarily that's
called slavery.

> Doctors claim their malpractice insurance costs are
> astronomical, and they probably are.
>
> They should clean up their own house first and crack down
> on inadequate doctors whose screwups cause high payouts,
> and then their insurance
premiums
> would be lower.
>
> Try suggesting THAT to your doctor.

What about the doctor who files a complaint about another
doctor and gets sued himself? Even if he wins, he loses,
because he has to pay for the lawyer himself and there are
no "loser pays" laws as there should be.

Many malpractice lawsuits involve NO wrong doing on the part
of the doctor - notably cerebral palsy suits based on claims
the baby was deprived of oxygen during birth, for which
there is no evidence

All you need is a shyster lawyer, a jury with a combined
I.Q. of about 1000, and the defendant wins the lottery. Of
course, the real winners are the lawyers, who collect about
2/3 of the awards, and the losers are those of us who pay
for these millionaire lawyers with unnecessarily high health
care costs. I don't know of any millionaire doctors (at
least not ones who do real medicine, I suppose there are
lots of vanity plastic surgeons who are - but then, THEY'RE
paid out of pocket). I know of lots of millionaire trial
lawyers. One even ran for the Democrat nomination for
president this year and is still a viable candidate for the
V.P. spot. I even know one personally, from school, who has
a mansion in Newport, R. I.

> There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly as
> the AMA.

Politicians, lawyers, journalists, teachers, ...

Do we have better politics than ever? Better courts
than ever? Better newspapers than ever? Better
education than ever?

No. No. No. Hell, no.

But we DO have better health care than ever. If doctors were
performing like these other professions, life expectancy
would be about 50 - certainly less than when FDR started
Social Security.

> Doctors make too much money, insurance companies make too
> much money too.

I wish on you, and all who think that doctors make too much
money, the quality of doctor you would get if they made one
third to one half as much. And I would support laws to allow
you to let anyone you choose perform surgery on you.

Not for me and my family, thanks.

By the way - who should make MORE than the person who
literally has your life in his hands?

> The system is broke and we end users are the casualties.
> Too bad.

The system is broke because the government got far too
much involved.

> WE pay for the uninsured and the indigent ANYWAY, but
> nobody wants to
admit
> it. Make a single payer universal health care system and
> all the prices will go down.

Sure - just like Medicare, right? Can you say, "Bankrupt?"
 
On Sun, 23 May 2004 15:06:25 -0400, Ted Rosenberg
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6
>
>Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than
>for Medicare.

You know, you've been here awhile and you're not crazy. You
seem to quote a lot of good material. Any places you
regularly check out?
 
George Conklin wrote:

>> > And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs
>> > are computed very differently for government and
>> > private entities. When they are figured on the same
>> > basis, they are very close.
>> >
>>
>> Plus, if you look at the federal budget, you will
>> discover that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs
>> are spread over several different line items.
>>
>
> This is one of the standard rants of those who are
> against universal health care. They all claim that there
> are mystery costs not accounted for by government. It is
> like the Sierra Club claiming that the true cost of
> gasolene is $15 a gallon.

There are no "mystery costs", they're all there for
all to see.

However, Federal accounting and private sector accounting
are significantly different. But one does not have to be a
CPA to analyze the data and see that gov't programs spend as
much on administration as private sector companies do. If
you have even a modicum of understanding of financial
reporting, you can go to the federal budget and to the
private sector 10Ks and recast the statements to compare
like expenditures.

There are specific items you can argue (should taxes paid by
private sector companies be included in administrative
costs, e.g., or how should the cost of the administrative
and legislative branches be allocated to specific programs
like Titles XVIII and XIX). But when apples are compared to
apples, gov't allocation of expenditures between provider
costs and non-provider costs is essentially the same as the
private sector's.
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Brooks Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:205sc.53060$hH.995373@bgtnsc04-
> > news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > Ted Rosenberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Skeptic wrote:
> > > >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point,
> > > >> but let me try to
> > > > <snipped for brevity)
> > > >
> > > > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
> > > > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of
> > > > overhead of prepaid health plans.
> > > >
> > > > The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide
> > > > most of the
> health
> > > > care in the US is incredibly inefficient.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative
> > > costs are computed very differently for government and
> > > private entities. When they are figured on the same
> > > basis, they are very close.
> > >
> >
> > Plus, if you look at the federal budget, you will
> > discover that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs
> > are spread over several different line items.
> >
>
>This is one of the standard rants of those who are against
> universal
> health care. They all claim that there are mystery costs
> not accounted
for
> by government. It is like the Sierra Club claiming that
> the true cost of gasolene is $15 a gallon.

So, George, what are the national costs of environmental
protection? Is it just the budget of the EPA and other
government agencies, or do you have to include the far
greater costs imposed on businesses by the government
agencies - costs that the consumer NEVER sees other than
increased prices, for which they blame the corporations,
of course.

What we need is truth in billing. All doctors should present
a bill for their actual services, then add line items for
compliance with government/insurance regulations,
malpractice (i.e., trial lawyer extortion) insurance, etc.

Of course, since almost no one actually pays for their own
care directly (one of the major faults of our system), few
will notice, but it would be a good start. Maybe they could
put up a price list in the office of how much lower the
average person's health insurance bill would be without
these expenses. (And then businesses should do the same on
their price lists.)
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:Ercsc.19015$PU5.11968@fed1read06...
|| > | Any thoughts as to why?
| >
| > It's not a fraction of prepaid health
| > plans.....Medicare, like any government bureaucracy,
| > lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes
of
| > overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently report
| > whatever part of
| the
| > cost they want to report....
|
| You are like the Sierra Club claiming that the true
| cost of gasoline is $15 a gallon because true costs are
| not computed. What you are doing is claiming that all
| government data is a lie, and you and only you know the
| truth.

Others have already answered your claim - but speaking as
one who has worked with the Federal bureaucracy for more
than forty years, I can assert positively that NO Federal
program reports it's "costs" as it's "costs". You have to
review all the ancillary agencies, etc., and add them all
up....this is not rocket science and it's nothing new.
Government data isn't a "lie", it's government data and you
need to learn how to read it and interpret it - I'm only one
of many thousands of people who know how to do that.
Clearly, you aren't among that number......:)

The most important thing is that single payer, like most
socialist programs, doesn't work - costs escalate and
quality of service goes down. If you went to most of those
socialist paradises that rhapsodize about the wonders of
their system, you'd find the quality of care is lower than
that we provided for cats and dogs in veterinary hospitals
in this country......

And, just as an aside, IF the Sierra Club and the whackos
they represent had their way, gasoline would cost more like
$20 a gallon......

PC
 
"W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| : "Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| : news:9Jbsc.103231$iF6.9532547@attbi_s02...
| : |
| : | "Ted Rosenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
| : | message news:[email protected]...
| : | >
| : | >
| : | > Skeptic wrote:
| : | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point,
| : | > > but let me try
to
| : | > <snipped for brevity)
| : | >
| : | > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one.
| : | > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of
| : | > overhead of prepaid health plans.
| : |
| : | Any thoughts as to why?
|
| : It's not a fraction of prepaid health
| : plans.....Medicare, like any government bureaucracy,
| : lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes
of
| : overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently report
| : whatever part of
the
| : cost they want to report....just as those who champion
| : single payer
don't
| : tell you that all too often care is rationed and
| : unavailable to many....another way of keeping costs
| : down. I prefer the private sector
and
| : open competition - whenever you have a free market and
| : competition,
quality
| : goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori
| : truth.....
|
| : PC
|
| And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are forced?

Indeed they do - HMO's are the precursor of the single payer
system. No sane person uses them....and those of you who
continue to whine that you have no other choice can save
your bandwidth.......only people who want cheap care use
HMOs and they get what they paid for, cheap care.....

A free market, with competition, mitigates for "fee for
service" and choice for the consumer. Our system provides
the finest health care in the world for everyone, even
illegal aliens who broke the law to enter the country.
High prices are due to bureaucratic excesses and phony
"controls". The free market with competition is the
answer, not HMO's, which are a pathetic travesty on decent
medical care....

PC
 
W. Baker wrote:

>
> And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are forced?

The HMO Act of '73 was an attempt to expand previous plans
like Kaiser Permanente and the Centros in Florida which
rationed prepaid health in return for lower premiums.

They were immediately very popular.

Somewhere along the way, the willingness to have the HMO
limit service only to service they deemed necessary and
sufficient disappeared, and HMOs reverted to the service
levels of fee-for-service plans. And the price of fee-for-
service plans.

Those of us who have no health insurance would be happy
to to find a

physical therapy for every sprained wrist.

Those who have plans paid for by their employers or by the
taxpayer refuse to let us have rationed care.

But when the 100% of the cost of care comes from yer own
wallet, it is comforting to have the doc tell you that you
don't need a CAT scan.