So without the current medical insurance industry, medical care would be cheap and affordable?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Obama and Dems to go it alone on health-care reform, if GOP refuses to compromise
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Maybe not cheap, but withoput greedy slimeballs standing between us and our doctors, pocketing money which they have not earned, certainly less expensive and more available.
When the concept of health care insurance was first put into action, it was intended to get doctors paid for the service they provided. Now, the companies exist to funnel money to parasites who produce as little as possible and throw the helpless to the curb.
My health care needs should not be a profit center for the whiney investor class. There is no reason the governemt could not do a better job.
(Don't spout your Republican mantra that government can't do anything well. It is a myth told by old men with their brains leaking out their ears.)
So avoid the greedy slimeballs and don't use them. Pay your medical bills the same way you pay to get your car repaired- direct to the provider of the service.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,066
Why? It is not hypocritical to complain about the high cost of health insurance while still being a client and while trying to get those costs down.
Well because according to leftysergeant the high cost of medical care is due to the insurance company middleman. Go around the middleman and you get "less expensive and more available" medical care.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Works very well if you don't need care costing more than a couple of hundred bucks, and you have a couple of hundred bucks.
Doesn't work so well if you have a catastrophic event. Such events can only be covered for most people by pooling risk. In the USA, people rely on insurance companies to pool the risk. That they do this for some people doesn't mean the overall cost of the pool as a whole can't be very much higher than it would have been without the middle-man.
Rolfe.
Doesn't work so well if you have a catastrophic event. Such events can only be covered for most people by pooling risk. In the USA, people rely on insurance companies to pool the risk. That they do this for some people doesn't mean the overall cost of the pool as a whole can't be very much higher than it would have been without the middle-man.
Rolfe.
So the insurance companies make medical care both more expensive by being a middleman and less expensive by pooling risk.
Rolfe
Adult human female
In the first case, for the pool as a whole, and in the second case for the individuals who have high-ticket needs.
Yes, that's right.
Rolfe.
Yes, that's right.
Rolfe.
There are plenty of health insurance companies in the USA are that non-profit, thus eliminating the "greedy slimeball" factor for people able to get them. I don't think that they are significantly cheaper than the for profit ones and thus it seems that greedy insurance companies are not to blame for (a significant portion of) the high cost of health care in the US.
Congress needs to focus on something else if they want to make health care more affordable for the average American. What exactly, I am not sure. But I don't make the big bucks in Congress....
Congress needs to focus on something else if they want to make health care more affordable for the average American. What exactly, I am not sure. But I don't make the big bucks in Congress....
Last edited:
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,066
Do you actually believe that non-profit orgs are immune to being run by greedy slimeballs? From what I understand non-profit only means that the company cannot show a profit. It doesn't mean that those working withing the company can't be greedy and give themselves enormous salaries and bonuses.
Howie Felterbush
Bow Tie Daddy
Do you actually believe that a government run insurance company will attract and pay personnel for less than what they could make in the private sector?
i am curious as to why GOPers insist on "starting over". This suggests there is not one single thing they like in the new Obama, Senate, or House plans.
well, if they hate EVERYTHING in the three Democrat plans, than what is there to talk about?
even if they hated just 50% of the plans, then they could be adjusted to fit the GOP's needs. no need to start over.
i think its clear that "start over" is a code-word for "Do Nothing".
well, if they hate EVERYTHING in the three Democrat plans, than what is there to talk about?
even if they hated just 50% of the plans, then they could be adjusted to fit the GOP's needs. no need to start over.
i think its clear that "start over" is a code-word for "Do Nothing".
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,066
This seems to be the case in every other modern society.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,066
This is exactly it. All they want to do is to kill health insurance reform. Everything they've asked for, they've been given, until now. I'm glad Obama's testicles have dropped.
GOPers were insistent that we drop the public option. we did.
GOPers were insistent we get rid of the "death panels". we did.
GOPers were insistent we get rid of the bribe to Nebraska. Obama has.
GOPers were insistent we drop abortion coverage from any govt. subsidies. we did.
and even without their demanding, Obama has also dropped the non-profit co-ops..which I personally hate that he did.
what more do the GOPers want? they want us to hand them a defeat for Obama and the Democrat led Congress? well they can forget about it.
GOPers were insistent we get rid of the "death panels". we did.
GOPers were insistent we get rid of the bribe to Nebraska. Obama has.
GOPers were insistent we drop abortion coverage from any govt. subsidies. we did.
and even without their demanding, Obama has also dropped the non-profit co-ops..which I personally hate that he did.
what more do the GOPers want? they want us to hand them a defeat for Obama and the Democrat led Congress? well they can forget about it.
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Originally Posted by Neally 
Do you actually believe that a government run insurance company will attract and pay personnel for less than what they could make in the private sector?
And here in the US the average private sector job pays in the mid $40K range, while the average federal government job pays in the mid $70k range.
Fail.
Do you actually believe that a government run insurance company will attract and pay personnel for less than what they could make in the private sector?
And here in the US the average private sector job pays in the mid $40K range, while the average federal government job pays in the mid $70k range.
Fail.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,066
Or maybe "start over" means, "You put this thing together behind closed doors, without involving us. Rather than try to edit YOUR bill, why don't we ALL put a bill together collectively -- one that has our input from the beginning rather than begrudgingly including it at the end? A genuine bipartisan effort rather than a Democrat effort with a bipartisan tweak?"
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
I'm not sure you are comparing apples to apples. Dragging the average down for private industry are all the minimum wage jobs. You just don't see those sorts of jobs in govt.
When I compare a specific field, public vs private, we can see a better comparison. I know that engineers earn more in private industry than public. One of the lures of public engineering jobs is they offer better benefits so one needs to weigh what is more important.