Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cost controls will need to come into place. Insurance profit margin (up to 20%) is eliminated. Marketing costs for insurance companies, gone.
It's really simple. Every other country does it and it costs way way way less. Yes, first world countries with living standards comparable to ours. No reason why it cannot be done here and it will be done, it's just a matter of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
There is no evidence to support that notion.
The major costs of the total health care/health insurance system is labor - labor from untold masses of employees whose livelihood depends on the existence of their jobs.
Then add extra costs because all these employees will have their own Federal gold-plated pensions & Cadillac healthcare.
There's no point in trying to refute or disabuse you of anything you wrote in that post of yours because the one highlighted phrase above shows how biased, misinformed, and uninformed you are when it comes to anything having to do with federal expenditures or benefits.
Cost controls will need to come into place. Insurance profit margin (up to 20%) is eliminated. Marketing costs for insurance companies, gone.
It's really simple. Every other country does it and it costs way way way less. Yes, first world countries with living standards comparable to ours. No reason why it cannot be done here and it will be done, it's just a matter of time.
Exactly. We as a nation need to have that conversation about reigning in costs across the board, and that conversation needs to start 20 years ago. Not only insurance companies, but high-profit-margin providers and drug companies. I'm very much aware of how fee schedules are negotiated by insurance companies with those providers. It's like making sausage, and it's disgusting. There are many issues to work out with government-run health insurance, but I'm not a fan of giving away our health care dollars to armies of paper-pushers, hedge-fund managers, and pharma bros.
Cost controls will need to come into place. Insurance profit margin (up to 20%) is eliminated. Marketing costs for insurance companies, gone.
It's really simple. Every other country does it and it costs way way way less. Yes, first world countries with living standards comparable to ours. No reason why it cannot be done here and it will be done, it's just a matter of time.
You seem to not understand how "every other country does it". It's not easy-peasy. There are trade-offs. Medicare is single payer, has no advertising costs (except for the advantage plans but that's on the insurance companies not Medicare), has no profit margin. Yet health care through Medicare is not substantially less expensive than any other health care.
Not true.
Cost controls will need to come into place.
By increasing compliance costs, the Federal Government will drive costs UP, not down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestieJeff
Insurance profit margin (up to 20%) is eliminated. Marketing costs for insurance companies, gone.
Under Obamacare, insurance profit margin is already tightly regulated at less than that.
Moreover, with Federal Government "Single Payer Insurance," administrative costs go UP, not down, as the Federal Government needs at least 20% more headcount to do the same amount of work as is accomplished in the private sector, coupled with higher total compensation, gold-plated pensions & Cadillac health care.
Single Payer is a boon to the American Federation of Government Employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestieJeff
It's really simple. Every other country does it and it costs way way way less. Yes, first world countries with living standards comparable to ours. No reason why it cannot be done here and it will be done, it's just a matter of time.
Other countries are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Single Payer is really just a call for "Someone Else Payer," where that someone else is defined by the Ultra Progressive Left to be "rich fat cat Republicans."
A Single Payer scheme where *everyone* pays the same insurance premium is not envisioned by the left; Social Justice Warriors inevitably say a Rich Person should pay more than a Poor Person for the same product as a penalty for the sin of being affluent, and that forces all sorts of distortions.
For homeowners insurance, two next door neighbors purchasing the same coverage from the same company will pay the same (or substantially the same) insurance premiums, which is as it should be. Yet, if one of those neighbors earns 10x the other neighbor, Single Payer, as envisioned by SJWs would have the more affluent neighbor pay more for the exact same product. That's wrong.
Cost controls will need to come into place. Insurance profit margin (up to 20%) is eliminated. Marketing costs for insurance companies, gone.
It's really simple. Every other country does it and it costs way way way less. Yes, first world countries with living standards comparable to ours. No reason why it cannot be done here and it will be done, it's just a matter of time.
Where exactly do you get insurance profit margin is up to 20%? At all the health plans where I was employed, profit margin was much less than 10%. Please provide references.
Where exactly do you get insurance profit margin is up to 20%? At all the health plans where I was employed, profit margin was much less than 10%. Please provide references.
I agree. Minimum loss ratios under the ACA require that companies pay out at least 85% of their premiums as claims. That leaves 15% for salaries, facilities, advertising, and- yes- profit. If they pay less than 85% they have to pay a dividend to the policyholders. If they pay more than that they can't ask for extra. I'd also like to see WestieJeff's sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
A Single Payer scheme where *everyone* pays the same insurance premium is not envisioned by the left; Social Justice Warriors inevitably say a Rich Person should pay more than a Poor Person for the same product as a penalty for the sin of being affluent, and that forces all sorts of distortions.
For homeowners insurance, two next door neighbors purchasing the same coverage from the same company will pay the same (or substantially the same) insurance premiums, which is as it should be. Yet, if one of those neighbors earns 10x the other neighbor, Single Payer, as envisioned by SJWs would have the more affluent neighbor pay more for the exact same product. That's wrong.
And that's how Medicare works. I earned at the max level for all but the first 5 or so years of my 38-year career. I get exactly the same Medicare as someone who worked 40 quarters at minimum wage. Add a spouse with no work record to their Medicare and the discrepancy increases. (I'm widowed so no one else gets Medicare on my record.) Add IRMAA surcharges, which I just got slammed with and which increased my Medicare premiums by over 250% from last year and... well, now we're not even paying the same premiums for the same coverage.
Another related article. Specifically, this poll notes that 77% of those polled support 50-64 year-olds being able to buy into Medicare. Though, as many comments here have noted, no specifics on what that may entail (initial buy in, ongoing cost, etc).
Another related article. Specifically, this poll notes that 77% of those polled support 50-64 year-olds being able to buy into Medicare. Though, as many comments here have noted, no specifics on what that may entail (initial buy in, ongoing cost, etc).
Sometimes it is all about how the poll writers phrase the question. I can imagine the following two questions getting quite different results in a poll:
1. Do you favor allowing 50-64 year-olds to buy into Medicare at the same price as post-65 year olds?
2. Given that the price of Medicare is much less than its actual cost, Do you favor allowing 50-64 year-olds to buy into Medicare at the same price as post-65 year olds, where the difference in cost will be made up by cutting Social Security benefits to already retired people? How about if the difference were instead made up by cutting SNAP (food stamps) to low income people?
You seem to not understand how "every other country does it". It's not easy-peasy. There are trade-offs. Medicare is single payer, has no advertising costs (except for the advantage plans but that's on the insurance companies not Medicare), has no profit margin. Yet health care through Medicare is not substantially less expensive than any other health care.
Yes but you also have to understand that since Medicare only covers mainly those over 65 their costs are going to be higher than if you included into it a younger population that should have less procedures and thus cost avg would drop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
