Prev: The Most Powerful Natural Penis Enlargement Technique >>
Next: 4.7 L V8 Engine question
From: larry moe 'n curly on 12 Nov 2009 02:56


Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:12:52 -0500, dr_jeff wrote:
>
> The government estimates 40 M Americans without healthcare. They include
> 12M illegal aliens, who aren't really Americans, are they?
>
> That leaves 28 M Americans w/o healthcare.
>
> The US government already has MedicAid. Why didn't they just put them on
> MedicAid?
>
> Why? Any good answers?
>
> > Because there are income limits for Medicaid. If you make more than a
> > certain amount, you aren't able to be covered.
>
> So you take over an entire industry, rahter than raise the income limits?
>
> The real answer I was looking for here is, they want control of the
> healthcare industry.

The US has one of the least socialized health insurance systems in the
developed world but the highest health care costs and the lowest
proportion of coverage. Explain. You can't blame government because
other countries either have higher government participation or more
government restrictions on private insurers. I'd blame the industry
whose share of the GDP has gone from 1% in the 1960s to 5% now,
without improving quality.

> They could have very easily raised the income limit for MedicAid.

States don't want to do that because Medicaid, like other programs for
the poor, is always the first budgetary sacrificial lamb in line for
slaughter because the poor don't have the money, time, or wits to
scare politicians.

> They could have done it very quietly, on both sides of Congress, without
> raising all the roofs they raised.

No. Politicians and most Americans hate the poor.

> They didn't want to because then they wouldn't have control.

Your conclusion makes no sense because expanded Medicaid would be
expanded control.

We have to reform the health insurance system simply because private
insurers are way too expensive, and the US can't devote 20% of GDP to
health care in the future. The share is now 17%, compared to 10-12%
for most developed countries and about 6-8% for Britain and Japan. In
dollars, Japan and Britain spend less per person than our private
health insurance premiums cost. That's how bloated US private
insurers are. The best overhaul would be universal Medicare, fully
funded by the participants, with no subsidies. Then let private
insurers compete and show just how much more efficient the private
sector is. According to the Obama haters, the government is never as
efficient as the private sector, so it should be no trouble for it to
eventually grab all the customers.

From: ron on 12 Nov 2009 08:37
I got a "Medicare Summary Notice" a couple of days ago - it was sent from
"CIGNA Government services" according to the envelope. So it appears that
CIGNA is processing medicare claims for Uncle? It was dated 10-29, I got it
last week and it covered claims from 6-12 to 9-09 for medical.



From: ron on 12 Nov 2009 11:40
I know that it makes sense to do that Scott - HOWEVER - the folks in
congress, and nobama are convinced that the "Gubmint" don't need no private
business in healthcare - I see! canceling these billings by private business
will save the 50 billion a year they are budgeting in their health plan?

From: Gary L. Burnore on 12 Nov 2009 11:59
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:40:44 -0800, "ron" <randus3(a)teranews.com>
wrote:

>I know that it makes sense to do that Scott - HOWEVER - the folks in
>congress, and nobama are convinced that the "Gubmint" don't need no private
>business in healthcare - I see!

No, dip, you don't see. You still don't understand optional? You
still don't understand competition? You espeically don't understand
MEDICARE.



> canceling these billings by private business will save the 50 billion a year they are budgeting in their health plan?

Stupid question since it isn't true. Fool.
From: in2dadark on 13 Nov 2009 14:47
Medicare fraud is growing exponentially. See my other posts for
examples of that. If they would put some teeth into 'arresting'
medicare fraud they could lower the entitlement age to 60 or 55 when
the bulk of the health problems begin. Don't cut medicare to
insure the young and healthier, cut medicare fraud. Barry's not doing
that. For every fraud they uncover now there are a thousand popping
up or still going.

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:12:52 -0500, dr_jeff wrote:
> >
> > The government estimates 40 M Americans without healthcare. They include
> > 12M illegal aliens, who aren't really Americans, are they?
> >
> > That leaves 28 M Americans w/o healthcare.
> >
> > The US government already has MedicAid. Why didn't they just put them on
> > MedicAid?
> >
> > Why? Any good answers?
> >
> > > Because there are income limits for Medicaid. If you make more than a
> > > certain amount, you aren't able to be covered.
> >
> > So you take over an entire industry, rahter than raise the income limits?
> >
> > The real answer I was looking for here is, they want control of the
> > healthcare industry.
>
> The US has one of the least socialized health insurance systems in the
> developed world but the highest health care costs and the lowest
> proportion of coverage. Explain. You can't blame government because
> other countries either have higher government participation or more
> government restrictions on private insurers. I'd blame the industry
> whose share of the GDP has gone from 1% in the 1960s to 5% now,
> without improving quality.
>
> > They could have very easily raised the income limit for MedicAid.
>
> States don't want to do that because Medicaid, like other programs for
> the poor, is always the first budgetary sacrificial lamb in line for
> slaughter because the poor don't have the money, time, or wits to
> scare politicians.
>
> > They could have done it very quietly, on both sides of Congress, without
> > raising all the roofs they raised.
>
> No. Politicians and most Americans hate the poor.
>
> > They didn't want to because then they wouldn't have control.
>
> Your conclusion makes no sense because expanded Medicaid would be
> expanded control.
>
> We have to reform the health insurance system simply because private
> insurers are way too expensive, and the US can't devote 20% of GDP to
> health care in the future. The share is now 17%, compared to 10-12%
> for most developed countries and about 6-8% for Britain and Japan. In
> dollars, Japan and Britain spend less per person than our private
> health insurance premiums cost. That's how bloated US private
> insurers are. The best overhaul would be universal Medicare, fully
> funded by the participants, with no subsidies. Then let private
> insurers compete and show just how much more efficient the private
> sector is. According to the Obama haters, the government is never as
> efficient as the private sector, so it should be no trouble for it to
> eventually grab all the customers.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The Most Powerful Natural Penis Enlargement Technique >>
Next: 4.7 L V8 Engine question