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.
Medicaid is the dumping ground for the most expensive to insure.
Can you imagine how expensive private insurance premiums would be without the existence of Medicaid?
It's almost like Medicaid was created in partisanship with the insurance industry. Private insurance needs Medicaid!!
For some reason it seems like I read that. Medicare was created because private insurance companies didn't want to insurance the old and the disabled.
Another reason why Medicare is bleeding money is because of Medicare Advantage programs where the government is paying private insurance companies extra $ to cover things for seniors. The government pays Medicare HMOs 13% more than it pays traditional Medicare, yet the HMOs care for a healthier mix of seniors. This is leading to privatization of Medicare and funding shortfalls for the traditional Medicare program. Gotta love it when those health care lobbyists get their way.
You could have stopped after the statement in bold. Saying that single payer insurance is government run health care is wrong. It's a play on words used by opponents to sway the opinion of the uneducated.
Noooooo it is the truth. If the government is paying the bills the government will decide what type of medical care you can and can not have. It is that simple.
Noooooo it is the truth. If the government is paying the bills the government will decide what type of medical care you can and can not have. It is that simple.
You're saying instead of a private insurance company approving payment, the government will be approving payment.
Neither one is telling you what type of medical care you can have....they are telling the hospital what type of medical care they are willing to pay for.
Your spin on the situation is weak. But I can see how it would work on some people.
HHS warns of double-digit spike in health premiums - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100218/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_insurance_rates - broken link)
I am still in disbelief that there are many who want to keep insurance companies around.
I find this interesting, especially considering the fact that the California Senate passed a "state run single-payer healthcare bill" in late January .... at the cost of $200 Billion a year!! Hmmmmmm ..... And all of this in a state that has the worst economy in the country!!!
The Medicare-for-all system would be extended to all California residents and individuals would have the opportunity to purchase private insurance to cover specific types of services not included in the government-run plan.
BTW, this was passed almost straight down party lines ... with only 1 Democrat voting with the Republicans.
Could somebody explain the business case behind insuring somebody with preconditions?? If I have $100,000 to invest in a health insurance company I am sure as hell not going to take on sick patients if I have a choice. Not terminally sick patients at least.
I wouldn't be against some kind of program that helps out those who cannot pay for catastrohpic problems. But having the gobment take care of EVERYTHING from colds to cancer will never work.
I find this interesting, especially considering the fact that the California Senate passed a "state run single-payer healthcare bill" in late January .... at the cost of $200 Billion a year!! Hmmmmmm ..... And all of this in a state that has the worst economy in the country!!!
The Medicare-for-all system would be extended to all California residents and individuals would have the opportunity to purchase private insurance to cover specific types of services not included in the government-run plan.
BTW, this was passed almost straight down party lines ... with only 1 Democrat voting with the Republicans.
Wait a minute To make an argument you would have to provide the public's annual expenditures for private health insurance.
Will the consumer save money by paying their premium to the state or to an insurance company?
Maybe the $200 Billion is a lessor annual expense. Who voted for it is irrelevant. It's dollars and cents.
We need to know if the $200 billion is less or more than the public currently spends on private health insurance.
Could somebody explain the business case behind insuring somebody with preconditions?? If I have $100,000 to invest in a health insurance company I am sure as hell not going to take on sick patients if I have a choice. Not terminally sick patients at least.
I wouldn't be against some kind of program that helps out those who cannot pay for catastrohpic problems. But having the gobment take care of EVERYTHING from colds to cancer will never work.
That's the point. The insurance model does not work in this country. If I owned an insurance company, I would dump the sick and elderly onto the lap of the government just like they currently do.
Why won't it work? Because you said so? Single payer coverage already works. We can't keep making financial decisions in this country based on personal principle. We need to evolve and do things smarter.
Why would we give any more power to Washington DC, corrupt through and through. Far worse than insurance companies, who must compete or go out of business. I would rather have choice, than a Washington DC monopoly. SP is simply another Harrison Bergeron brick around our (still somewhat) free necks.
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.
The government pays Medicare HMOs 13% more than it pays traditional Medicare, yet the HMOs care for a healthier mix of seniors. This is leading to privatization of Medicare and funding shortfalls for the traditional Medicare program. Gotta love it when those health care lobbyists get their way.
And all of this in a state that has the worst economy in the country!!! 
To make an argument you would have to provide the public's annual expenditures for private health insurance. 
