The public plan... good article...

[Damocles]

Busting up the de facto monopolies is a good thing.

Allowing plans to be sold across state lines is not in any way a good thing at all. You'd end up with a situation akin to what the credit card industry has done with respect to interest rates, the insurers would buy off a small state legislature that would pass extremely insurer friendly laws that would serve to screw the insured, every insurance company would set up shop in said state and sell shitty insurance everywhere and no one could do anything about it.

Right, because Federal regulations are totally fruitless and stuff, there is no way they could set rules on what they could do to you.

/sarcasm



In this case limiting government can, oddly enough and rarely seen, be done through centralizing the regulations rather than allowing 50 separate legislations regulate it willy-nilly... This is something that should be covered under the commerce clause, not marijuana plants in some dude's house.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Totally. What would the founding fathers think? Imagine bills not being made available in final form to the public for 48 hours on the internet prior to a vote. It's so unAmerican.

You have become a complete party hack.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I thought my argument was quite coherent and succinct:.

It wasn't. it was idiotic and nonsensical.

 

[Damocles]

France has single payer, we are not shooting for that.
Neocons would revolt for sure.

So would about 70% of the nation. Neocons make up how much of the population? I'd say that pretty much what Bush was left with in approval rating, but even then some of that was party loyalty, not belief in America being the world police.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Are you friggin kiddin? Tell me... Which is more cost effective... providing the same quality of health care for the million residents of Denver or the half million residents of the state of Alaska?

Think about the number of hospitals it would take... think about how many pieces of equipment it would take.

2) I have read the 'studies' on the costs of medical malpractice suits. You will find that they have common flaws (at least the ones I have seen cited by the left)

a) they tend to take the percentage of malpractice awards to total health care costs (many of the studies include social security spending as a 'health care cost').

b) the 'studies' I have seen ignore the defensive medicine as a portion of the effects from malpractice awards.

c) the 'studies' I have seen ignore the fact that ONE malpractice award is then turned into increases in not just the premiums of the doctor affected, but also other doctors. (which leads to defensive medicine)

4) the 'studies' also fail to comprehend that when the medical malpractice premiums see those raises across the board... those are then transferred to patients in terms of higher medical bills. Those higher charges then get reflected in higher individual insurance premiums.

But like I said, many on the left want to ignore the above. They want to pretend it doesn't exist. Why? Because the trial lawyers spend a lot of money convincing the Dems in DC that malpractice suits aren't 'significant'. The Dem politicians then parrot that sentiment to their kool-aid drinkers who then come back and spout that nonsense on message boards.

1) Your armchair analysis doesn't quite cut it. Surely you have some sort of expert to back you up on the claim that population density, as opposed to myriad other factors.

2) Alright, fuck the studies. Just look at Texas.

 

[Bonestorm]

You have become a complete party hack.

Totally. It's not like the country existed for 200+ years without bills being posted on the internet for 48 hours prior to passage. Anyone claiming so is totally a partisan hack.

Oh, and charges of "hack" coming from the guy that touts "tort reform" as the way to cut down on healthcare costs is pretty funny.

 

[Topspin]

So would about 70% of the nation. Neocons make up how much of the population? I'd say that pretty much what Bush was left with in approval rating, but even then some of that was party loyalty, not belief in America being the world police.

Bullshit most democrats are freaked out over wanting the single payer, they just no it's a no go.
Personally I plan to profit off this mess.
Pelosi is breathing fire at insurers, check her financial release it's full of these companies.

Prior to passing a mandate, I'm getting in the health insurers ETF for a quick profit. Already did it once.

 

[Topspin]

secondly, I think for profit can smoke any gov option.
Just open up competition.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) Your armchair analysis doesn't quite cut it. Surely you have some sort of expert to back you up on the claim that population density, as opposed to myriad other factors.

2) Alright, fuck the studies. Just look at Texas.

LMAO....

So instead of actually answering the question.... you want a study?

Take a look at ANY marketing book. Take a look at ANY economics book.

The DENSER the population, the EASIER and more cost effective it is to distribute a product. The LESS overhead you are going to incur. The LOWER the administrative fees.... etc... that will always be the case.

 

[Bonestorm]

Right, because Federal regulations are totally fruitless and stuff, there is no way they could set rules on what they could do to you.

/sarcasm



In this case limiting government can, oddly enough and rarely seen, be done through centralizing the regulations rather than allowing 50 separate legislations regulate it willy-nilly... This is something that should be covered under the commerce clause, not marijuana plants in some dude's house.

1) Name one area where the federal government pre-empted state level regulation and in doing so enacted regulations that were more strict than existing state-level regulations. Take your time.

Also, who is easier to buy: one U.S. Congress, one state legislature or 50 state legislatures? Personally, I'd like to make it as difficult as possible for the insurance industry to buy key decision-makers. You apparently want to make it as easy as possible.

2) Limiting government in this instance is not a good thing.

 

[Damocles]

Bullshit most democrats are freaked out over wanting the single payer, they just no it's a no go.
Personally I plan to profit off this mess.
Pelosi is breathing fire at insurers, check her financial release it's full of these companies.

Prior to passing a mandate, I'm getting in the health insurers ETF for a quick profit. Already did it once.

Rubbish, only about 30% of the nation are registered Ds, and among those only a percentage are willing to accept a public option.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO....

So instead of actually answering the question.... you want a study?

Take a look at ANY marketing book. Take a look at ANY economics book.

The DENSER the population, the EASIER and more cost effective it is to distribute a product. The LESS overhead you are going to incur. The LOWER the administrative fees.... etc... that will always be the case.

This isn't Econ 101 or Marketing 101. This is reality. The reality is that France and Germany, like every other developed country, have much lower per capita health care costs because of the role of government. Population density has little to nothing to do with it.

 

[Damocles]

1) Name one area where the federal government pre-empted state level regulation and in doing so enacted regulations that were more strict than existing state-level regulations. Take your time.

Also, who is easier to buy: one U.S. Congress, one state legislature or 50 state legislatures? Personally, I'd like to make it as difficult as possible for the insurance industry to buy key decision-makers. You apparently want to make it as easy as possible.

2) Limiting government in this instance is not a good thing.

1). Nobody said they had to be "more strict"... That is a strawman. In fact it is important that they are simply the same throughout, simplifying and allowing competition. "More strict" is your own wish, not that of every person.

Also, it is far cheaper to buy key decision-makers at the state level than it is at the more expensive Federal Level. Far fewer people pay close attention to their state legislators than do the Federal government. It ensures a far greater light on the activity of government, again in this rare case it is better to have one than 50.

2. Limiting government in this instance is a good thing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Totally. It's not like the country existed for 200+ years without bills being posted on the internet for 48 hours prior to passage. Anyone claiming so is totally a partisan hack.

Oh, and charges of "hack" coming from the guy that touts "tort reform" as the way to cut down on healthcare costs is pretty funny.

Yes, you are a hack. The fact that we did not have the ability to post bills on line 200 years ago, has NO bearing on whether we should do so today. The FACT is that Obama and the Dems ran on a 'we will be more transparent' platform the last two election cycles. What was so utterly important THEN suddenly isn't NOW. Only HACKS accept that.

Again, tort reform is only a PORTION of what needs to be fixed. It is ONE step. Yet HACKS like you continue to create the strawman of 'well superfreak says all we need is tort reform and that will fix things'. Which is NOT my position.

Bottom line... hacks like you are no longer worth my attention.

 

[Topspin]

This isn't Econ 101 or Marketing 101. This is reality. The reality is that France and Germany, like every other developed country, have much lower per capita health care costs because of the role of government. Population density has little to nothing to do with it.

Turd, they have gov run healthcare. That's not even being debated here, we have a multi-billion dollar insurance industry to protect.

 

[belme1201]

Without question this is another of the major problems. In most states the top two insurance companies control about 90% of the insured. Bust up these monopolies. Allow plans to be sold across state lines. Portability should not just be from one plan to another, but also from one state to another.

How would you handle the 47 million uninsured? How do we change the use of the Emergency Room as a place for everyday medical care? What about pre-existing conditions? What would the law say about drug companies selling for less elsewhere and prohibiting Americans from going elsewhere to buy them for less? What about bankruptcies due to medical costs? Wouldn't 50 different state laws make it difficult for companies to compete efficiently across so many state lines and, in fact, make insurance more costly if they chose to compete nationwide? Would rate increases beyond inflation be tolerated? How much profit is enough? Would jail terms become the norm for price fixing and price gouging? Does realclear have the answers?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This isn't Econ 101 or Marketing 101. This is reality. The reality is that France and Germany, like every other developed country, have much lower per capita health care costs because of the role of government. Population density has little to nothing to do with it.

LMAO.... wrong moron.

Econ 101 and Marketing 101 have everything to do with this. The FACT is, you are scared to address the question because it makes your argument weaker.

If you have one city with a population of a million... how many hospitals does it take to care for that city?

If you had that same million in population spread out over 25 cities... how many hospitals would you then need?

If every hospital needed the same equipment, which would be more cost effective?

If you had to deliver supplies to 25 cities vs. 1... which is more cost effective?

Would the 25 cities have the same level of specialists as the 1?

If you cannot see how population density plays a role then you are either retarded or simply a party hack.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO.... wrong moron.

Econ 101 and Marketing 101 have everything to do with this. The FACT is, you are scared to address the question because it makes your argument weaker.

If you have one city with a population of a million... how many hospitals does it take to care for that city?

If you had that same million in population spread out over 25 cities... how many hospitals would you then need?

If every hospital needed the same equipment, which would be more cost effective?

If you had to deliver supplies to 25 cities vs. 1... which is more cost effective?

Would the 25 cities have the same level of specialists as the 1?

If you cannot see how population density plays a role then you are either retarded or simply a party hack.

Let's try it this way: what about Australia?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How would you handle the 47 million uninsured? How do we change the use of the Emergency Room as a place for everyday medical care? What about pre-existing conditions? What would the law say about drug companies selling for less elsewhere and prohibiting Americans from going elsewhere to buy them for less? What about bankruptcies due to medical costs? Wouldn't 50 different state laws make it difficult for companies to compete efficiently across so many state lines and, in fact, make insurance more costly if they chose to compete nationwide? Would rate increases beyond inflation be tolerated? How much profit is enough? Would jail terms become the n orm for price fixing and price gouging? Does realclear have the answers?

1) Those who choose to be uninsured would remain so, though I would encourage the promotion of HSA accounts as they work great for the young, single, healthy individuals. That is about a third of your 47 million.

2) The illegal immigrants would continue to be uninsured... though we would continue to provide them with emergency care as a humanitarian gesture. That is another third of your 47 million.

3) The remaining third... this is where we should focus our attention. First, we have to get costs under control. The current plans being proposed do not do that. Then we can subsidize their care. We do not need to nationalize health care to address this portion of the population.

4) Those that use the emergency care as you describe are the ones in numbers 2 & 3 above.

5) Coverage should be portable. That way if an individual changes jobs they do not lose coverage and do not have to re-qualify for insurance. That said, if you make insurance companies take everyone, then what is to stop people from only buying insurance when they get sick? What incentive would I have to be covered when I do not need it?

6) As for Bankruptcies... again, this is why we have to address the COSTS of health care and not just rushing a plan to make sure everyone is 'covered'.

7) Yes, 50 sets of regulations make it expensive and difficult for insurers to compete. That is why I stated we need a normalized set of regulations. It is the current status quo that has allowed the monopolies (or duopolies) to form.

8) As for the drug companies charging more here. The funny thing is... this is a DEMOCRAT concept. It is simply one that is taken across borders. Dems want the rich to subsidize the poor.... that is what we do. WE subsidize poorer countries. If a drug company isn't allowed to recoup costs, they have no incentive to create new drugs. Given that about 90% never even make it to the FDA, they have to recoup the costs of failures as well. People have to get over the mindset that we are 'entitled' to every new drug and treatment the second it is developed.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Let's try it this way: what about Australia?

Same thing... population density. While their land mass is about the size of the US... the bulk of their population is condensed into their top ten cities.

Our ten largest cities account for about 8.5% of our population. Their top ten account for about 50% of their population.

To be clear... I am not stating that density is the SOLE reason. But it is foolish to believe it isn't a factor in costs.

That said... are you ever going to address my point or are you just going to keep scrambling to try and provide a 'gotcha' moment?

I can't help but notice you wouldn't address the scenario of the one city vs. the 25. Why is that???