Just when you think Sarah Palin cant get any stupider

[redsamurai]

he doesn't understand supply and demand jack. The only way the govt. would become the sole provider of healthcare in this country is if they were just so damned good that nobody demanded anything better and therefore there was no market for private insurance. I'm a supporter of some nationalized form of healthcare but I'm naive enough to think the govt. can run the entire country's healthcare. Rest assured wealthy people like plunkey would be keeping their private insurance. This all just more hyperbole from a man who cannot exist in between the extreme poles of rational thought processing. He claims the govt. would in effect stack the market in their favor and eliminate competition yet he's the one barking that govt. does absolutely nothing right. So my question is, if you think that...why would you than transfer your policy to the govt.'s? The obvious answer is he wouldn't, and there would be plenty more folks just like him that would create a "demand" for better higher priced private insurance. If I were a private insurer wouldn't I be ecstatic over the prospect of shedding the lower spectrum of health care buyers who have notoriously unhealthier lifestyles and can't pay their bills on time.....??? I dunno, healthcare ain't my field so I could very well be missing something. But the chicken little deathpanels are imminent bullshit has just got to stop.

 

[mrplunkey]

he doesn't understand supply and demand jack. The only way the govt. would become the sole provider of healthcare in this country is if they were just so damned good that nobody demanded anything better and therefore there was no market for private insurance. I'm a supporter of some nationalized form of healthcare but I'm naive enough to think the govt. can run the entire country's healthcare.

I agree with that point.

Rest assured wealthy people like plunkey would be keeping their private insurance. This all just more hyperbole from a man who cannot exist in between the extreme poles of rational thought processing. He claims the govt. would in effect stack the market in their favor and eliminate competition yet he's the one barking that govt. does absolutely nothing right. So my question is, if you think that...why would you than transfer your policy to the govt.'s? The obvious answer is he wouldn't, and there would be plenty more folks just like him that would create a "demand" for better higher priced private insurance. If I were a private insurer wouldn't I be ecstatic over the prospect of shedding the lower spectrum of health care buyers who have notoriously unhealthier lifestyles and can't pay their bills on time.....??? I dunno, healthcare ain't my field so I could very well be missing something. But the chicken little deathpanels are imminent bullshit has just got to stop.

You are missing something.

It's not an issue of people willingly transferring their health care to the government. It's an issue of the government wiping-out private insurance.

How many successful private insurance companies are there specializing in Medicare-style benefits for people over 65? How many successful private insurance companies are there specializing in health care for US veterans? Then ask yourself -- why are there no private insurance companies in these markets?

 

[Mr. dB]

Had the health care bill that passed the US house of representatives become law, it would have set a cascade of events into place that would ultimately result in the government effectively becoming the sole provider of the health insurance function as we know it today.

Let's see if he disagrees with that.

I disagree with that. You're predicting the future. Also, it's the old "slippery slope" argument, which is a sign of desperation.

 

[mrplunkey]

I disagree with that. You're predicting the future. Also, it's the old "slippery slope" argument, which is a sign of desperation.

What other possible outcome would there be? Heavily subsidized government insurance funded by "whatever sums are necessary" peacefully competing with private insurance that has to operate like a business?

How is that a "slippery slope" when the government would start with 65% market share from the day the bill passes?

That's as ridiculous as saying we should bomb Iran because we don't necessarily know that will escalate problems in the middle east. Using your logic, who knows? Simply assuming escalation would be predicting the future, wouldn't it?

 

[Mr. dB]

It's an issue of the government wiping-out private insurance.

After all the health insurance industry has done for us? Tragic!

 

[jackangel]

ok, let's posit that these initiatives are tantamount to nationalization, in the sense that it will eventually lead to a one-payer system.

on the face of it, i don't find that implausible. one wonders how they could compete, except perhaps by offering a better level of care, which
i don't believe their "business model" allows for. if they can't deny or delay coverage of services on a large scale (as i think they currently do), their margins go down. with
the government as another option, their volume (i.e. group/member base) also goes down. seems lose-lose (deservedly so?)

now, what happens when we have that system? is it an issue of principle that makes this bad, or the subsequent quality of care provided, or the massive, unsustainable spending
that threatens to undermine an already-debilitated economy? or all 3?

without a doubt, i'm no fan of healthcare companies. they make nice, evil targets. are comparisons to other nations with "socialized medical care" without merit? are they besides the point?

 

[mrplunkey]

After all the health insurance industry has done for us? Tragic!

I realize you don't like private insurance and prefer single payer. That's another debate.

But be honest for a second. Do you recognize that the health reform bill that cleared the house of representatives was a deliberate vehicle to move us toward single payer?

 

[mrplunkey]

ok, let's posit that these initiatives are tantamount to nationalization, in the sense that it will eventually lead to a one-payer system.

on the face of it, i don't find that hard to accept.

now, what happens when we have that system? is it an issue of principle that makes this bad, or the subsequent quality of care provided, or the massive, unsustainable spending
that threatens to undermine an already-debilitated economy? or all 3?

without a doubt, i'm no fan of healthcare companies. they make nice, evil targets. are comparisons to other nations with "socialized medical care" without merit? are they besides the point?

We can look to our 45 year history with Medicare:

1) We haven't controlled costs at all. The run rate of Medicare costs per year is over 10x its projected rate. We didn't miss our estimate -- we completely blew it.

2) We haven't managed the program well at all, because once politicized, it becomes impossible to say "no" to voters. Here's an example: Originally, Medicare was supposed to start at the age an average American died. Since then, we haven't changed the eligibility date a single year.

3) Medicare is the king of perverse incentives. This subject would be a book in and of itself.

4) People like to extrapolate other social medical systems on ours, but fail to realize how different our culture is. Japan has a good social health care system -- but they also send people into your place of work to make sure your waist is 34.5" or less. Otherwise, you get mandatory counseling and the shame associated with not being a team player. We're the fattest and the fittest. We're the biggest risk-takers and the worst home bodies. Americans celebrate extremes and ignore the middle of everything.

I'll go on and on later... gotta get ready for Valentines Day dinner.

 

[mrplunkey]

And before I go... consider this:

There are 48M Hispanics in the US -- that's roughly 16% of the US population. Now consider the power they wield over politicians. Both sides are falling over themselves to propose amnesty programs.

Guess what? 33% of all Americans are obese -- not just overweight -- obese. Imagine their political power. I've said this before on several talks I've given and just remember you heard it here first: Obesity is going to make us miss the good old days when all we had to worry about was smoking and cholesterol.

 

[redsamurai]

- but they also send people into your place of work to make sure your waist is 34.5" or less.

That's a new one, never heard that before. Where did you come upon this information? They don't do that at all japanese companies, this I know for a fact. I'll have to ask my accounting professor about this as he's from there and has worked for japanese companies all his life.