Just Wondering

[Guest]

Many here on this forum as well as many others seen demonstrating at town hall meetings being held to discuss healthcare reform are decrying the idea of a "government option" in any proposed legislation. Private, for-profit companies can and will do a much better job, they say. But at the same time most seniors are vocal, sometimes even violent, demanding that Congress "don't touch my Medicare!"

In my own case, my wife and I pay a private insurer more than twice the premium I pay Medicare for secondary coverage. I'm left to assume that those who so vociferously resist a government option either have much cheaper secondary and presription drug insurance than I do. Or, they have a lot more money than I have, and are willing to spend it on more expensive insurance.

Is there something I'm missing here? Just wondering.

[Guest]

What your missing is what they see very clearly. Any government option will cost you more. Might seem to be a cheaper payment, but you need to consider taxes and inflation and paying the government bureaucrats to run it. It will always be the most expensive option. Nothing that the government has ever done has been the low cost option. Why would you think their involvement in health care would be any different?

[Guest]

and supplement.
What I am concerned about is the cuts in Medicare will reflect in what is not paid (of course). The supplemental will become the bearer of some of these costs. There will no doubt be a resultant increase in our premiums to merely maintain a status quo benefit package. Or there will be an out cropping of new coverages that will have to be subscribed to in order to maintain the status quo.

The cuts in Medicare are already being vocalized....trial balloons(?).

I suggest leaving the current Medicare/medicaid/supplemental/et al coverages in place. Grandfather the existing (and maybe even some number out in the future) participants. Go after, aggressively the abuse in the existing programs.
Then develop a health care program designed specifically for the non grand fathered, the non insured and any body else they want to throw into the pile.

Reform does not necessarily require the scrapping of those parts that are working to many of us satisfaction.

ANY program being promoted that involves a take away of existing coverage should not be viable. Any programs that have useless buerocracy like death counseling should automatically be struck out. And this type process continue until such time as a viable program results....not a political agenda....nor a forced calender march.

I no doubt strayed from your querry, but am feeling more vocal than normal this morning. I wish there was a local town hall meeting to go to.

btk

[Guest]

I corrected my original post. Our premium for secondary health insurance including prescription drug coverage, is twice the premium that we pay for Medicare coverage for both of us. I wasn't considering her Medicare premium in the initial post.

[Guest]

ANY program being promoted that involves a take away of existing coverage should not be viable. Any programs that have useless buerocracy like death counseling should automatically be struck out.

DEATH COUNSELING???.. Have you checked into a hospital lately.. YOU MUST have a living will WHY... so if something happens like Terry Shivo, your wish are known and legal. All the section is trying to do is for those less fortunate that cannot afford a lawyer be given the opportunity. I am sure it is drag on the health care system when someone is in a coma and has no money and no living will....

[Guest]

...Any government option will cost you more. Might seem to be a cheaper payment, but you need to consider taxes and inflation and paying the government bureaucrats to run it. It will always be the most expensive option....I hear your argument, but to prove what you say is as impossible as that YouTube video someone posted here with the two fellows on a mountaintop, with one asking the other to "prove" that the proposed healthcare reforms would be an improvement. An impossible premise, just as trying to prove that Medicare is actually more expensive than private insurance would be.

What I do know is that income tax rates have been reduced pretty substantially over the last decade, to levels very near an all-time historical low. That's certainly shown up in my yearly tax bills. My Medicare premiums have increased, but roughly at the rate of inflation, the same as Social Security payments which fund the premiums. On the surface, your allegation that government insurance is "always more expensive" is incorrect.

The numbers are almost impossible to gather. You have the population going up, the GDP going down, illegal immigration going up, payments to doctors and hospitals (but not drug companies) going down, etc. No one can prove with any certainty what you allege. Certainly no one posting on this board.

Actually, the Medicare portion of my insurance has gotten cheaper in my household. At the same time, my private, for-profit insurance premiums for secondary insurance have shown the following percentage increases over the last five years...8%, 18%, 4%, 12% and 9%. All rates waay greater than the amounts that my Social Security payments increased in the same period. The privately-provided portion of my healthcare insurance is killing me. It's not yet unaffordable in my household, but there will be a day that if these premium increases continue, it will be! If my private secondary insurance becomes unaffordable and I have to drop it, I'll just join the illegals and unisureds and everyone else on the public dole, and let the rest of you pay for our healthcare.

Here's what we do know about national health expenditures (NHE) from 2007, the latest complete numbers available...
NHE grew 6.1% to $2.2 trillion in 2007, or $7,421 per person, and accounted for 16.2% of Gross Domestic Product.
Medicare spending grew 7.2% to $431 billion in 2007, or 19 percent of total NHE.
Medicaid spending grew 6.4% to $329 billion in 2007, or 15 percent of total NHE.
Private spending grew 5.8% to $1.2 trillion in 2007, or 54 percent of total NHE.
Hospital expenditures grew 7.3% in 2007, up from 6.9% in 2006.
Physician and clinical services expenditures increased 6.5% in 2007, the same rate of growth as in 2006.
Prescription drug spending increased 4.9% in 2007, a deceleration from the 8.6% growth in 2006.
What I thought was important to note here is that every single expenditure category grew at rates substantially higher than inflation. All those expenditures went to private service providers.

I guess I might ask that if the government is so bad, so inefficient, at providing the insurance to pay these bills, how will adding a profit margin of 15-50% make things cheaper for us?

If you can come up with some real numbers, instead of just general "government is bad" generalizations, let us all know.

[Guest]

I did not limit my "government is always more expensive" statement to health care. So here is one real number for you. Dept of Energy formed in August of 77 to reduce the US dependence on foreign oil. Budget for current FY 24.7 billion. Dependence on imports? 1977, 38% 2008, 71% and those numbers will vary a few points depending on where you get them. So you are correct. I don't trust the government to provide any consumer service. Because I believe they will fail to meet the needs of the people. The objectives of those creating the plan is not to support us. It is strictly for their gain and re-election.

Medicare may cost you less but only because it is going broke. If premiums were raised to reflect true cost and sustain the program, it would cost you more. As for taxes, we don't need any more government spending to cause them to increase. Those already passed like the porkuless bill will cause that all by itself. So you will get your wish and taxes will go up.

I really can not think of a single successful government run program. So why should I expect health care to succeed. No it can't be proved that it will be more expensive, but their track record sure supports that premise. Before they add any new programs, don't you think the money would be better spent fixing some of the existing ones? Maybe SS and Medicare would be a good start. Let them show those can be managed successfully and I might be a little more supportive of health care.

[Guest]

If you think health care is expensive now...wait till it is free.

[Guest]

When has government ever done it cheaper, better or lowed costs?

Good case of can't see the forest for the trees here.

[Guest]

...

Here's what we do know about national health expenditures (NHE) from 2007, the latest complete numbers available...
NHE grew 6.1% to $2.2 trillion in 2007, or $7,421 per person, and accounted for 16.2% of Gross Domestic Product.
Medicare spending grew 7.2% to $431 billion in 2007, or 19 percent of total NHE.
Medicaid spending grew 6.4% to $329 billion in 2007, or 15 percent of total NHE.
Private spending grew 5.8% to $1.2 trillion in 2007, or 54 percent of total NHE.
Hospital expenditures grew 7.3% in 2007, up from 6.9% in 2006.
Physician and clinical services expenditures increased 6.5% in 2007, the same rate of growth as in 2006.
Prescription drug spending increased 4.9% in 2007, a deceleration from the 8.6% growth in 2006.
What I thought was important to note here is that every single expenditure category grew at rates substantially higher than inflation. All those expenditures went to private service providers.

I guess I might ask that if the government is so bad, so inefficient, at providing the insurance to pay these bills, how will adding a profit margin of 15-50% make things cheaper for us?

...

This is interesting.

- A NHE/GDP ratio can be misleading, as the question to which method of computing GDP (e.g., output, income or expenditure method) and what factors (and their weighting) went into the computation is unknown (it does make a difference!. Change any factor, or not include it (such as the $23Billion in remissions each year) and the numbers can be radically different.
- The annual percentage of NHE growth in the categories reflects what happens when an industry is vibrant. The auto industry used to be like that. The junk food industry seems to grow equal to the NHE. In addition, the NHE involves technological advances which have high RDTE costs and short life-span for recovery (new stuff comes out each day!).
- An aging person tends to consume more health care services, ergo costs to maintain/repair the health of an aging person tends to be higer than younger folk. This to me is common sense, but it would be good to have a medical actuary confirm this. So, the Medicare payroll taxes that workers (as most of us used to be) pay, plus the Medicare premiums, plus private supplements (costing the same as private insurance for workers) are logically needed to maintain/repair health of older folk.

The problem with government management goes back to: 1) can we conscript all medical professionals into government-run care clinics? 2) can the government establish salary limits on private medical professionals in private businesses similar to the NFL's salary cap program on teams? and 3) will the government agencies responsible to manage and operate national health care be limited in their funding to that collected specifically for health care, like the US Citizenship and Naturalization Service which operates solely on fees collected for immigration services?

#1 and #2 are legal problems (those "details" which seem minor to HR 3200 proponents) which fundamentally change our government and society - and so may require amending the Constitutional to be legal.

#3 is the killer. If the health care agencies are to be industrially funded, then the CBO forecasts are crucial to know what it really will cost us all - today, tomorrow, and the next decade. If the agency funding is to also depend on revenue from the General Treasury in addition to fees, that's a "hidden cost" to-be-determined - and that's where the overruns and "favorable estimation" come to play, and also higher taxes at numbers totally unknown at this time since there are no reliable estimates because all of the "how we're going to do this" stuff is still to-be-determined.

It still seems funny that folk are in a dire rush to spend potentially $trillion$ on the short and long term without any sound set of numbers to back up what will be provided for the money and if it will even stand legal review (or it will be shut down after a lot of money is spent along the way). Those "nasty details" again....

[Guest]

Unfortunately is today's world, too many people are having massive, costly health problems and some are dying young. How can we say that the "aging" population is the problem? I have so many friends and family (to say nothing of the ones that I just read about) that don't even make it to 65, much less beyond. Many of the 65+ group are much healthier and also more productive than their younger counterparts, so maybe a closer look is warranted. Take it a step further and compare the "older" driver to the younger drivers and you have the same thing. The younger ones so often think of themselves as immortal and drive accordingly. I, for one, just don't hold with generalizations.

Just one persons opinion.

[Guest]

Unfortunately is today's world, too many people are having massive, costly health problems and some are dying young. How can we say that the "aging" population is the problem? I have so many friends and family (to say nothing of the ones that I just read about) that don't even make it to 65, much less beyond. Many of the 65+ group are much healthier and also more productive than their younger counterparts, so maybe a closer look is warranted. Take it a step further and compare the "older" driver to the younger drivers and you have the same thing. The younger ones so often think of themselves as immortal and drive accordingly. I, for one, just don't hold with generalizations.

Just one persons opinion.

Health and life insurance are based on mortality and health tables. Actuaries get very well paid by keeping those statistics so the rates (all by age and risk) are set to make sure the companies don't spend more than they receive.

Generally, older folk require more maintenance. There are always folk who fit the profiles you describe, but in general, those younger than the TV population are stronger, healthier, have better reflexes, see and hear better. That does not mean they all have better sense.

[Guest]

A few things I have heard today that maybe someone will either validate of discuss....

......heard that the labor unions have been called in to go to these town hall meetings to "counterbalance" those who are there to show objection.

......heard a bunch of different numbers but hearing that even with the obscene spending on this or any health plan being considered there will be MILLIONS of americans without insurance which is amazing with all the money figures being tossed around.

.....heard that the talk is now swirling around about simply making those "wealthy" seniors pay more for drugs, etc. (what is wealthy and how would that definition stay constant)

Not sure what is true and what is not but have we gone nuts ! Pushing through a bill simply to say you did it and leave so many millions without insurance anyway does not make any sense !

[Guest]

Here is a good quote I heard today.( paraphrased, of course)
The freedom the protesters are defending can sometimes be messy and imperfect. A lack of freedom, however, is eternally oppressive. It is an unrelenting prison that poisons the human spirit, even when cloaked in allegedly humane programs such as government-run health care.

[Guest]

Everyone here should send any Social Security and Medicare payments back! Show the government we don't need them! We don't need a military, police or fire department and close those public schools! We don't need a federal highway or airport system! The uber-wealthy need all those tax dollars they are wasting on such useless things!

[Guest]

Everyone here should send any Social Security and Medicare payments back! Show the government we don't need them! We don't need a military, police or fire department and close those public schools! We don't need a federal highway or airport system! The uber-wealthy need all those tax dollars they are wasting on such useless things!

Is this another Paul Waldman quote?

[Guest]

I choose to believe what I want to believe.

Just A thought! Would someone compare the Insurance Companies administrative costs to Medicare administrative costs. Also, compare average salaries of Ins. company employees to Medicare employees. How many of each made a million dollars in salaries and bonuses. How much net profit was made by Ins. companies vs Medicare. How much did each pay in dividends to stock holders.

Please, don't confuse me with facts. I won't accept them, unless they support what I've already decided to believe.

[Guest]

Everyone here should send any Social Security and Medicare payments back! Show the government we don't need them! We don't need a military, police or fire department and close those public schools! We don't need a federal highway or airport system! The uber-wealthy need all those tax dollars they are wasting on such useless things!Let's get rid of the national parks, the FAA, the EPA and the FDA, as well. They're all a part of government and do NOTHING well. If we're lucky, we can even get rid of the IRS. That would eliminate the funding of any kind of government altogether!

[Guest]

...How much net profit was made by Ins. companies vs Medicare. How much did each pay in dividends to stock holders...A few of your questions can be answered with some independent research. But an overall answer to this question is..The private health insurance market is dominated by four gigantic insurers: UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Aetna, and Cigna. In the last five years, these companies have combined to earn over $44 billion in profits; UnitedHealth alone has made over $17 billion in profits over that period. That's enough to hire a whole lot of really good lobbyists methinks.

Here's a thoughtful article that should be read to balance the volatile anti-government opinions that are so prevalent...http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=health_cares_true_price

[Guest]

...How much net profit was made by Ins. companies vs Medicare. How much did each pay in dividends to stock holders...A few of your questions can be answered with some independent research. But an overall answer to this question is..the private health insurance market is dominated by four gigantic insurers: UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Aetna, and Cigna. In the last five years, these companies have combined to earn over $44 billion in profits; UnitedHealth alone has made over $17 billion in profits over that period. That's enough for the senior management of these companies to hire some really good lobbyists to make sure that whatever legislation being considered keeps those profits--and their bonuses--flowing, I think.

Here's a thoughtful article that should be read to balance the volatile anti-government opinions that are so prevalent...http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=health_cares_true_price

[Guest]

A few of your questions can be answered with some independent research. But an overall answer to this question is..the private health insurance market is dominated by four gigantic insurers: UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Aetna, and Cigna. In the last five years, these companies have combined to earn over $44 billion in profits; UnitedHealth alone has made over $17 billion in profits over that period. That's enough for the senior management of these companies to hire some really good lobbyists to make sure that whatever legislation being considered keeps those profits--and their bonuses--flowing, I think.

Here's a thoughtful article that should be read to balance the volatile anti-government opinions that are so prevalent...http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=health_cares_true_price

Paul Waldman thoughtful????? Surely you jest?????

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/08/07/democrats_fear_is_showing_on_health_care?page=1

[Guest]

Kahuna,
Going back to your original post, I do think it is a shame when a town meeting on health care is held, paid protesters and hecklers show up to disrupt the whole meeting. These bums do not represent the American people. The majority of Americans have given a mandate to make our health care system better and to end the wars for profit. When the last administration was in, town hall meetings had paid audiences where the speaker was cheered on by the faithfull. Remember the one where the troops in the photo op were actors? Looks like the Democrats will have to take this low road as well. Where has a country gone? The brown shirts are still trying to end our freedom.
At least the cash for clunkers appears to be working. The ones benefitting the most are ordinary American citizens! American citizens coming first? It's been such a long time since we heard that! Maybe there is hope!

[Guest]

Kahuna,
Going back to your original post, I do think it is a shame when a town meeting on health care is held, paid protesters and hecklers show up to disrupt the whole meeting. These bums do not represent the American people. The majority of Americans have given a mandate to make our health care system better and to end the wars for profit. When the last administration was in, town hall meetings had paid audiences where the speaker was cheered on by the faithfull. Remember the one where the troops in the photo op were actors? Looks like the Democrats will have to take this low road as well. Where has a country gone?
At least the cash for clunkers appears to be working. The ones benefitting the most are ordinary American citizens! American citizens coming first? It's been such a long time since we heard that! Maybe there is hope!
Interesting..I want to know more.
Paid protesters show up to disrupt the whole meeting
Is there any proof?
These bums do not represent the American people
Is there any proof these people are bums?
The majority of Americans have given a mandate to make our health care system better and to end the wars for profit
What majority has given a mandate for a better health care system? What war for profit? Who started this war?
The brown shirts are still trying to end our freedom.
Where are the brown shirts...and why are thet trying to end your freedom?

Me thinks you have some splaining to do Ricky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eI1KolTIdc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moonbattery.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

Villages Kahuna,

You've made my point. There are some things Government can do better and less expensively than private industry because there is no profit motive controling everything that's done. It's interesting to me that those most opposed to changes are those who have good health care coverage---could FEAR be be affecting their judgement?

[Guest]

One only needs to see how wonderful the Post Office is compared to those nasty private for profit companies like UPS and Fedex. The Post Office shows what a real Non-Profit can do! When you REALLY, Really need something delivered who do you call?

[Guest]

One only needs to see how wonderful the Post Office is compared to those nasty private for profit companies like UPS and Fedex. The Post Office shows what a real Non-Profit can do! When you REALLY, Really need something delivered who do you call?

That's comparing apples to oranges. UPS and Fedex cherry pick the most profitable delivery of packages. The USPS is left with individual letters and junk mail that require a lot more handling per item for a LOT less money.

[Guest]

Villages Kahuna,

You've made my point. There are some things Government can do better and less expensively than private industry because there is no profit motive controling everything that's done. It's interesting to me that those most opposed to changes are those who have good health care coverage---could FEAR be be affecting their judgement?

I respectfully disagree. "Profit" takes many forms, and in the government world, it's promotions, power, agency budgets (the bigger the budget, the greater the staff size and image), and NO incentive to economize.

The biggest joke is the 3rd quarter of the fiscal year for government agencies. This is when the agencies review their budgets to see how much could possibly end up un-obligated (e.g., unspent) at the end of the 4th quarter. The goal is to obligate/spend every last dime, because if the agency doesn't, the next fiscal year will mean no growth (inflationary, new programs, etc.) in budget and possibly a reduction. That circumstance is to be avoided at (pardon the pun) at all costs. That's why government never costs less from one year to the next, and why agencies seem to live on long after their usefulness is gone.

3rd quarter is when the marketeers hit the agencies big-time with "unsolicited proposals" to soak up some of that un-obligated money. The government procurement offices in the last two weeks of August, all of September, and the first week of October are working at a vicious pace to get all of the fiscal year's money spent, with agencies clamoring to insure the moneys are obligated/spent prior to October 1st (the first day of the new fiscal year), because the money "disappears"from use if not spent.

It's silly, but that's the way it is.

So, just because government is "nonprofit" does not make it a better bargain. There just is no value to the appointees, senior executives and top GS's to bring their agencies/office in "under budget," and in fact doing so can be a career-killer.

[Guest]

...When you REALLY, Really need something delivered who do you call?...To be honest, in the last couple of years I've been using USPS almost exclusively. As far as I'm concerned, they're the least expensive for small to medium-sized packages and their delivery times and reliability are equal to UPS or FedEx. Their flat-rate Priority boxes can't be beat. And with a phone call or a click of a button on the computer, they'll pick the package up at your front door at no extra charge. It'd cost an arm and a leg to have either of the private services do that.

As far as important letters are concerned, USPS overnight mail is as reliable as FedEx and about 15% cheaper. UPS is better for large, heavy packages, but you still have to wrestle them to the local UPS office or franchise. In The Villages, Villages Pack 'n Ship plays that role and their upcharges on top of the UPS or FedEx rates are absolutely exhorbitant.

I've tried them all and I don't agree with your assessment of the Postal Service.

[Guest]

I respectfully disagree. "Profit" takes many forms, and in the government world, it's promotions, power, agency budgets (the bigger the budget, the greater the staff size and image), and NO incentive to economize.

The biggest joke is the 3rd quarter of the fiscal year for government agencies. This is when the agencies review their budgets to see how much could possibly end up un-obligated (e.g., unspent) at the end of the 4th quarter. The goal is to obligate/spend every last dime, because if the agency doesn't, the next fiscal year will mean no growth (inflationary, new programs, etc.) in budget and possibly a reduction. That circumstance is to be avoided at (pardon the pun) at all costs. That's why government never costs less from one year to the next, and why agencies seem to live on long after their usefulness is gone.

3rd quarter is when the marketeers hit the agencies big-time with "unsolicited proposals" to soak up some of that un-obligated money. The government procurement offices in the last two weeks of August, all of September, and the first week of October are working at a vicious pace to get all of the fiscal year's money spent, with agencies clamoring to insure the moneys are obligated/spent prior to October 1st (the first day of the new fiscal year), because the money "disappears"from use if not spent.

It's silly, but that's the way it is.

So, just because government is "nonprofit" does not make it a better bargain. There just is no value to the appointees, senior executives and top GS's to bring their agencies/office in "under budget," and in fact doing so can be a career-killer.

Bingo It is that mind-set that wants to control Health care!!!!

[Guest]

Villages Kahuna,

You've made my point. There are some things Government can do better and less expensively than private industry because there is no profit motive controling everything that's done. It's interesting to me that those most opposed to changes are those who have good health care coverage---could FEAR be be affecting their judgement?

Could you be more specific? What has the government EVER run better and less expensively?

[Guest]

One only needs to see how wonderful the Post Office is compared to those nasty private for profit companies like UPS and Fedex. The Post Office shows what a real Non-Profit can do! When you REALLY, Really need something delivered who do you call?

How true!:agree:

[Guest]

I respectfully disagree. "Profit" takes many forms, and in the government world, it's promotions, power, agency budgets (the bigger the budget, the greater the staff size and image), and NO incentive to economize.

The biggest joke is the 3rd quarter of the fiscal year for government agencies. This is when the agencies review their budgets to see how much could possibly end up un-obligated (e.g., unspent) at the end of the 4th quarter. The goal is to obligate/spend every last dime, because if the agency doesn't, the next fiscal year will mean no growth (inflationary, new programs, etc.) in budget and possibly a reduction. That circumstance is to be avoided at (pardon the pun) at all costs. That's why government never costs less from one year to the next, and why agencies seem to live on long after their usefulness is gone.

3rd quarter is when the marketeers hit the agencies big-time with "unsolicited proposals" to soak up some of that un-obligated money. The government procurement offices in the last two weeks of August, all of September, and the first week of October are working at a vicious pace to get all of the fiscal year's money spent, with agencies clamoring to insure the moneys are obligated/spent prior to October 1st (the first day of the new fiscal year), because the money "disappears"from use if not spent.

It's silly, but that's the way it is.

So, just because government is "nonprofit" does not make it a better bargain. There just is no value to the appointees, senior executives and top GS's to bring their agencies/office in "under budget," and in fact doing so can be a career-killer.

I have seen examples of what you say both in the military and public education. Spend the money so that your budget doesn't get reduced the next year. :agree:

[Guest]

Our government cannot stop the waste in our current Medicare program. What makes you think another program will be any better. I also question why there is such a race for passage of a bill. Can't we just wait until someone reads it and fully understands what is going to take place.

[Guest]

Our government cannot stop the waste in our current Medicare program. What makes you think another program will be any better. I also question why there is such a race for passage of a bill. Can't we just wait until someone reads it and fully understands what is going to take place.

Me thinks if there is enough time to analyze and carefully decipher the fine print..the authors of the bill will be exposed for what they are...Socialists.