$60 billion in fraud in the Medicare program, and "news" program 60 minutes
reported on it.

What is this country coming to?

Steve

Oh, gosh, that's just coffee money for the government.
Shouldn't even have blinked at it. Wait till they show you
how to do it Chicago style.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"SteveB" wrote in message
...
$60 billion in fraud in the Medicare program, and "news"
program 60 minutes
reported on it.

What is this country coming to?

Steve

"SteveB" wrote:

$60 billion in fraud in the Medicare program, and "news" program 60 minutes
reported on it.

What is this country coming to?

Steve



If I was looking over expendatures, I think the numbers would be higher. Check out what
Medicare pays for wheel chairs and scooters.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
news
"SteveB" wrote:

$60 billion in fraud in the Medicare program, and "news" program 60
minutes
reported on it.

What is this country coming to?

Steve



If I was looking over expendatures, I think the numbers would be higher.
Check out what
Medicare pays for wheel chairs and scooters.

Wes

About the same that private insurance pays -- usually 80%.

Medicare has been starved for enforcement money for a long time. Private
insurance companies do somewhat better, as a percentage, but their fraud
estimates run from $63B (an industry group) to over $150B (summary of
law-enforcement estimates). It's become a big target for criminals because
it's so easy.

Obama has earmarked an increase in the enforcement budget for Medicare of
$200 million. The private healthcare fraud organization (NHCAA) says you get
something like $7 back for every $1 spent on investigations.

--
Ed Huntress

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
news
"SteveB" wrote:

$60 billion in fraud in the Medicare program, and "news" program 60
minutes
reported on it.

What is this country coming to?

Steve



If I was looking over expendatures, I think the numbers would be higher.
Check out what
Medicare pays for wheel chairs and scooters.

Wes

About the same that private insurance pays -- usually 80%.

Medicare has been starved for enforcement money for a long time. Private
insurance companies do somewhat better, as a percentage, but their fraud
estimates run from $63B (an industry group) to over $150B (summary of
law-enforcement estimates). It's become a big target for criminals
because it's so easy.

Obama has earmarked an increase in the enforcement budget for Medicare of
$200 million. The private healthcare fraud organization (NHCAA) says you
get something like $7 back for every $1 spent on investigations.

--
Ed Huntress


HUH! interesting. i'm for the public option but i had no idea how they
were going to control "waste, fraud and abuse", and i was sure there'd be
TONS of it. it's heartening to know the disastrous waste, fraud and abuse
that occurs in medicare is partially due to a low enforcement budget, and
there's lots and lots and lots in private healthcare too. whew! glad to
know that's a weak argument against the public option. thanks ed. seems
like it's a cash cow for crooks, both systems. there was a guy locally
who was complaining that his powered wheelchair was a lemon, broke a month
or two after he got it, and the warranty was like only two weeks or
something. i can't remember the details of the story but in the end it
seemed to me like it was a scam perpetuated by medicare and the scooter
manufacturer. (just like the people who squeal loudest when they talk
about reforming food stamps aren't the "welfare mothers" but supermarket
associations and food producers, etc.)

b.w.

HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they get out
of it?

As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is that
it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even to squeeze
it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in favor* of the
public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?

--
Ed Huntress

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they get
out of it?



i dunno. nothing. just funneling money to the wheelchair manufacturer(?).

g I doubt it. The electric wheelchair manufacturers do have pretty poor
warranties (Tuffcare is a year; extended warranties are widely available,
but you pay for them out of your pocket, so a lot of people don't get them).
But Medicare is quite restrictive about who gets them at government expense.
Private insurance is, too, but they aren't dealing with as many seniors, so
it's a small budget item for them.



As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is
that it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even to
squeeze it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in favor*
of the public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?



i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of
business.

Having worked with them, I don't disagree on that point. It isn't that their
people are vile; the problem is that the incentives they're chasing are
antithetical to our interests.

However, I think we should look at Switzerland's program more closely. Their
insurance is 100% private. But the insurance firms are run as not-for-profit
companies. They've managed to structure their incentives so the whole system
works fairly well in favor of the insured. Their per-person insurance costs
are close to ours, but they have 100% coverage.

I have no desire to see the government run even the insurance business if
there's a way to avoid it. But I'd accept a single-payer system if it could
be made to work well, and if there's no chance we could have something like
the Swiss system.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
news
"SteveB" wrote:

$60 billion in fraud in the Medicare program, and "news" program 60
minutes
reported on it.

What is this country coming to?

Steve



If I was looking over expendatures, I think the numbers would be higher.
Check out what
Medicare pays for wheel chairs and scooters.

Wes

About the same that private insurance pays -- usually 80%.

Medicare has been starved for enforcement money for a long time. Private
insurance companies do somewhat better, as a percentage, but their fraud
estimates run from $63B (an industry group) to over $150B (summary of
law-enforcement estimates). It's become a big target for criminals because
it's so easy.

Obama has earmarked an increase in the enforcement budget for Medicare of
$200 million. The private healthcare fraud organization (NHCAA) says you
get something like $7 back for every $1 spent on investigations.

--
Ed Huntress


HUH! interesting. i'm for the public option but i had no idea how they
were going to control "waste, fraud and abuse", and i was sure there'd be
TONS of it. it's heartening to know the disastrous waste, fraud and abuse
that occurs in medicare is partially due to a low enforcement budget, and
there's lots and lots and lots in private healthcare too. whew! glad to
know that's a weak argument against the public option. thanks ed. seems
like it's a cash cow for crooks, both systems. there was a guy locally who
was complaining that his powered wheelchair was a lemon, broke a month or
two after he got it, and the warranty was like only two weeks or something.
i can't remember the details of the story but in the end it seemed to me
like it was a scam perpetuated by medicare and the scooter manufacturer.
(just like the people who squeal loudest when they talk about reforming food
stamps aren't the "welfare mothers" but supermarket associations and food
producers, etc.)

b.w.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they get
out of it?



i dunno. nothing. just funneling money to the wheelchair manufacturer(?).




As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is
that it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even to
squeeze it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in favor*
of the public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?



i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of business.




--
Ed Huntress


b.w.

"William Wixon" wrote in

HUH! interesting. i'm for the public option but i had no idea how they
were going to control "waste, fraud and abuse", and i was sure there'd be
TONS of it.

If waste, fraud, and abuse were ever controlled, we wouldn't need a dime in
additional funds. The patient is hemorrhaging, and the leeches are thriving
on the blood.

Steve

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they get
out of it?



i dunno. nothing. just funneling money to the wheelchair manufacturer(?).




As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is
that it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even to
squeeze it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in favor*
of the public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?



i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of
business.




--
Ed Huntress


b.w.

And now we have to wait to see a doctor like the line of people in "Parking
Wars." Only worse. We can be rejected at the window, and go home with
NOTHING.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they get
out of it?



i dunno. nothing. just funneling money to the wheelchair
manufacturer(?).




As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is
that it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even
to squeeze it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in
favor* of the public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?



i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of
business.




--
Ed Huntress


b.w.

And now we have to wait to see a doctor like the line of people in
"Parking Wars." Only worse. We can be rejected at the window, and go
home with NOTHING.

Steve

Yeah, it will be the hell like they have in Switzerland. How *is* that
medical care in Switzerland, anyway? How did all of those private doctors
and hospitals slip into the "socialized" system? Hmm?

--
Ed Huntress

F. George McDuffee wrote:

The current Congressional approach appears to be a very toxic
combination of "reinventing the wheel" and "quick, do something
-- don't just stand there." I keep hearing an echo that sounds
like "shut up and drink your Kool-Aid."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones



You want the lemon-lime?
Or the goofy grape?

"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

The current Congressional approach appears to be a very toxic
combination of "reinventing the wheel" and "quick, do something
-- don't just stand there." I keep hearing an echo that sounds
like "shut up and drink your Kool-Aid."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

You want the lemon-lime?
Or the goofy grape?

The goofy grape, but only if it has LSD in it. There used to be a LSD
tablet called goofy grape that had a grape flavor.

Steve

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:44:52 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

The current Congressional approach appears to be a very toxic
combination of "reinventing the wheel" and "quick, do something
-- don't just stand there." I keep hearing an echo that sounds
like "shut up and drink your Kool-Aid."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

You want the lemon-lime?
Or the goofy grape?

The goofy grape, but only if it has LSD in it. There used to be a LSD
tablet called goofy grape that had a grape flavor.

Steve

I think the reference was to "Jim Jones and Co". Koolaid

Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:09:20 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Medicare has been starved for enforcement money for a long time.

That's precisely the problem with socialism - enFORCEment.

The Free market AUTOMATICALLY controls prices - if a given service costs
too much, you'll find another provider, because it's in your self-interest.

Socialism destroys that option and therefore is the enemy of Freedom and,
as such, is the enemy of The Constitution of the United States, and MUST
be stopped.

Thanks,
Rich

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:44:52 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:

"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
The current Congressional approach appears to be a very toxic
combination of "reinventing the wheel" and "quick, do something
-- don't just stand there." I keep hearing an echo that sounds
like "shut up and drink your Kool-Aid."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
You want the lemon-lime?
Or the goofy grape?
The goofy grape, but only if it has LSD in it. There used to be a LSD
tablet called goofy grape that had a grape flavor.

Steve

I think the reference was to "Jim Jones and Co". Koolaid

Gunner


yep, but you do have a choice of flavors!

HUH! interesting. i'm for the public option but i had no idea how they
were going to control "waste, fraud and abuse", and i was sure there'd be
TONS of it. it's heartening to know the disastrous waste, fraud and abuse
that occurs in medicare is partially due to a low enforcement budget, and
there's lots and lots and lots in private healthcare too. whew! glad to
know that's a weak argument against the public option. thanks ed. seems
like it's a cash cow for crooks, both systems. there was a guy locally
who was complaining that his powered wheelchair was a lemon, broke a month
or two after he got it, and the warranty was like only two weeks or
something. i can't remember the details of the story but in the end it
seemed to me like it was a scam perpetuated by medicare and the scooter
manufacturer. (just like the people who squeal loudest when they talk
about reforming food stamps aren't the "welfare mothers" but supermarket
associations and food producers, etc.)

b.w.

HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they get out
of it?

As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is that
it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even to squeeze
it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in favor* of the
public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?


What's interesting is to see how different people got completely
different takes on the 60 Minutes piece. First off, the guy being
interviewed was in prison. He was caught doing Medicare fraud and was in
prison doing a long stretch. The main point here is that he was a
criminal. All the people doing this stuff are criminals. This isn't
government waste or abuse. It's Americans committing serious felonies.
The fact that so many can get away with it isn't the point. The point is
they are lawbreakers. Last I looked quite a few people are breaking the
laws against drugs too and most of them get away with that too.

If the government gets serious about law enforcement in Medicare it will
make a huge difference in how much the criminals can get away with. So
if we spend some more to catch them we'll save a lot more in government
payouts. Which makes the point that we can save enough in Medicare to
pay for a public option without raising taxes. Adding just one more
reason why we need to switch to a public plan. The private one we now
have isn't working and it never will. Sooner or later that will be clear
to most people. We're not there yet but we're getting close.

Hawke

William Wixon wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they get
out of it?



i dunno. nothing. just funneling money to the wheelchair manufacturer(?).



As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is
that it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even to
squeeze it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in favor*
of the public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?



i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of business.

Yeah, ditto that. The whole private insurance business model for health
care just doesn't work. The idea that a company that is out to maximize
profits for it's shareholders is the best method to provide good quality
health care for all is a joke. They have to reduce payouts as much as
possible and eliminate as many sick people as they can to increase
profits. How can a system like that be the best to provide good, low
cost health care to a country's population? The simple answer is that it
can't. Time to face that fact and move into the 21st century.

Hawke

Which side of that argument do you fall on?



i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of
business.

Having worked with them, I don't disagree on that point. It isn't that their
people are vile; the problem is that the incentives they're chasing are
antithetical to our interests.

However, I think we should look at Switzerland's program more closely. Their
insurance is 100% private. But the insurance firms are run as not-for-profit
companies. They've managed to structure their incentives so the whole system
works fairly well in favor of the insured. Their per-person insurance costs
are close to ours, but they have 100% coverage.

I have no desire to see the government run even the insurance business if
there's a way to avoid it. But I'd accept a single-payer system if it could
be made to work well, and if there's no chance we could have something like
the Swiss system.



Hear, Hear! I agree, the Swiss have us beat hands down. I also agree
with your sentiment about the single-payer system.

Anyone who thinks we have an excellent system in place already and who
doesn't want to change it ought to look at maternal mortality rates in
the developed world. The U.S. is too far down that list.... And that is
just one example of a dramatic failure of our current "system."
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

Ed Huntress wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they get
out of it?


i dunno. nothing. just funneling money to the wheelchair
manufacturer(?).



As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is
that it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even
to squeeze it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in
favor* of the public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?


i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of
business.



--
Ed Huntress

b.w.
And now we have to wait to see a doctor like the line of people in
"Parking Wars." Only worse. We can be rejected at the window, and go
home with NOTHING.

Steve

Yeah, it will be the hell like they have in Switzerland. How *is* that
medical care in Switzerland, anyway? How did all of those private doctors
and hospitals slip into the "socialized" system? Hmm?


Can you explain why someone like Steve would believe total crap like
that when Rush Limbaugh tells it to him but when the actual truth is
told to him by someone like you or me he refuses to believe it? Is it
that they just don't want to believe it? Is it that they can only accept
anything from certain people? It's really perplexing. These people are
like the ones who for years refused to accept that tobacco was addictive
and caused cancer when the facts were public knowledge for decades. The
irrational American?

Hawke

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:09:20 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Medicare has been starved for enforcement money for a long time.

That's precisely the problem with socialism - enFORCEment.

The Free market AUTOMATICALLY controls prices - if a given service costs
too much, you'll find another provider, because it's in your
self-interest.

Right. Just like it did for the derivatives market. There's a perfect
example of how an unregulated marketplace works, right?

Have you tried to find another insurance provider lately, on an individual
basis? Do you pay for your own insurance, or is it paid by your employer?


Socialism destroys that option and therefore is the enemy of Freedom and,
as such, is the enemy of The Constitution of the United States, and MUST
be stopped.

Rich, I wouldn't disagree with your basic point but you make it in such a
over-simplified way that I have to shake my head.

Regulation is not "socialism." Government OWNERSHIP of business and industry
is socialism. And as Alan Greenspan and the whole country learned last year,
to our dismay, markets don't automatically "clear." Competition doesn't
automatically appear when the cost of entry is high.

The problems we face now in finance and healthcare are NOT the result of the
free market system being hampered or distorted. They're problems and
limitations inherent in the system itself. Not every market has the
conditions necessary for competition to work. Many markets naturally tend
toward oligopoly or monopoly. Oligopoly, whether it was the car makers in
unspoken collusion with unions in the '60s, or health care insurance
depending upon scale to operate profitably today, is as natural as
free-market competition, if the conditions push the market in that
direction. And they push health care in that direction.

--
Ed Huntress

Yeah, it will be the hell like they have in Switzerland. How *is* that
medical care in Switzerland, anyway? How did all of those private doctors
and hospitals slip into the "socialized" system? Hmm?


You've been listening to only one side of the arguement. Look he

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf

There are many more out there that give an unbiased look at the pros and
cons of the Swiss system. It all depends on your personal situation and
point of view.

The Swiss system is remarkably different from ours, and it appears to
work. Why shouldn't we give it a shot?

Do you know just how much your employer has to pay for your health
insurance coverage? Wouldn't you prefer to get that pay instead, AND
have more choices about what health insurance policies you get to choose
from, knowing that they are not profiteering in the process?

Are you simply afraid of change?
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"William Wixon" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

HUH! And how is Medicare implicated in this "scam"? What would they
get out of it?


i dunno. nothing. just funneling money to the wheelchair
manufacturer(?).



As for the argument against the public option, the most serious one is
that it could be manipulated to control the insurance industry -- even
to squeeze it out. Interestingly, that's also a serious argument *in
favor* of the public option.

Which side of that argument do you fall on?


i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of
business.



--
Ed Huntress

b.w.
And now we have to wait to see a doctor like the line of people in
"Parking Wars." Only worse. We can be rejected at the window, and go
home with NOTHING.

Steve

Yeah, it will be the hell like they have in Switzerland. How *is* that
medical care in Switzerland, anyway? How did all of those private doctors
and hospitals slip into the "socialized" system? Hmm?


Can you explain why someone like Steve would believe total crap like that
when Rush Limbaugh tells it to him but when the actual truth is told to
him by someone like you or me he refuses to believe it?

No. I can't explain it. I can observe it, though, and it's a source of
constant amazement.

Is it that they just don't want to believe it? Is it that they can only
accept anything from certain people? It's really perplexing. These people
are like the ones who for years refused to accept that tobacco was
addictive and caused cancer when the facts were public knowledge for
decades. The irrational American?

Most people seem to seize onto an ideology and never let go, viewing
everything in terms of whether it supports their ideology (good) or
challenges it (bad). I don't know why. It's a mindset with which I can't
identify.

--
Ed Huntress

Can you explain why someone like Steve would believe total crap like
that when Rush Limbaugh tells it to him but when the actual truth is told
to him by someone like you or me he refuses to believe it? Is it that they
just don't want to believe it? Is it that they can only accept anything
from certain people? It's really perplexing. These people are like the
ones who for years refused to accept that tobacco was addictive and caused
cancer when the facts were public knowledge for decades. The irrational
American?

Hawke

Uh, because I have seen what the government has done to everything it has
gotten involved in?

Huh?

Steve

In article ,
says...

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:09:20 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Medicare has been starved for enforcement money for a long time.

That's precisely the problem with socialism - enFORCEment.

The Free market AUTOMATICALLY controls prices - if a given service costs
too much, you'll find another provider, because it's in your
self-interest.

Right. Just like it did for the derivatives market. There's a perfect
example of how an unregulated marketplace works, right?

Have you tried to find another insurance provider lately, on an individual
basis? Do you pay for your own insurance, or is it paid by your employer?


Socialism destroys that option and therefore is the enemy of Freedom and,
as such, is the enemy of The Constitution of the United States, and MUST
be stopped.

Rich, I wouldn't disagree with your basic point but you make it in such a
over-simplified way that I have to shake my head.

Regulation is not "socialism." Government OWNERSHIP of business and industry
is socialism. And as Alan Greenspan and the whole country learned last year,
to our dismay, markets don't automatically "clear." Competition doesn't
automatically appear when the cost of entry is high.

The problems we face now in finance and healthcare are NOT the result of the
free market system being hampered or distorted. They're problems and
limitations inherent in the system itself. Not every market has the
conditions necessary for competition to work. Many markets naturally tend
toward oligopoly or monopoly. Oligopoly, whether it was the car makers in
unspoken collusion with unions in the '60s, or health care insurance
depending upon scale to operate profitably today, is as natural as
free-market competition, if the conditions push the market in that
direction. And they push health care in that direction.


I agree. Too many people get confused about regulation and socialism,
and it's easy for the Republicans in Congress to confuse the issue
further by claiming we are heading for a socialist solution. Even if
the government offered a "Public Option" plan, we still have the option
of not enrolling in it! "Socialism" my furry rumpus.

--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

"TinLizziedl" wrote in message
k.net...


Yeah, it will be the hell like they have in Switzerland. How *is* that
medical care in Switzerland, anyway? How did all of those private doctors
and hospitals slip into the "socialized" system? Hmm?


You've been listening to only one side of the arguement. Look he

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf

No, I haven't looked at only one side. I lived in Switzerland for a year, a
long time ago, studying politics at the Univ. of Lausanne, and it continues
to be of great interest to me. I find many aspects of their society and
government to be emminently sensible, although only parts of it are
applicable here, for a variety of reasons. There are many parts of it that I
wouldn't want to see implemented here. But their health care system is one
from which we could draw some useful lessons and ideas.

But this is no place to make nuanced or balanced arguments. The only way to
come close to sensibility here is to try to balance the extremes. It's sad
and unsatisfying, but that's as far as you'll get on many subjects.


There are many more out there that give an unbiased look at the pros and
cons of the Swiss system. It all depends on your personal situation and
point of view.

The Swiss system is remarkably different from ours, and it appears to
work. Why shouldn't we give it a shot?

I think we should at least look at how they managed to make a private
insurance system work so much better in terms of serving the interests of
the customers. In some ways it just makes too much sense -- we have a hard
time with non-profit corporations, for example, except for things like
charities.


Do you know just how much your employer has to pay for your health
insurance coverage?

Yes -- my wife's employer, actually.

Wouldn't you prefer to get that pay instead, AND
have more choices about what health insurance policies you get to choose
from, knowing that they are not profiteering in the process?

Again, the Swiss system is a pretty good model. Basic care is uniform; on
top of that, you can pay for all sorts of optional amenities, and the
insurers can make a profit on those things. But those are things that are
matters of convenience or comfort, or of stabilizing the annual costs of
something that isn't life-or-death, such as dental care. That sounds good to
me.


Are you simply afraid of change?

Never. I'm the opposite about many things, especially financial ones.

--
Ed Huntress

i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of business.

Yeah, ditto that. The whole private insurance business model for health
care just doesn't work. The idea that a company that is out to maximize
profits for it's shareholders is the best method to provide good quality
health care for all is a joke. They have to reduce payouts as much as
possible and eliminate as many sick people as they can to increase
profits. How can a system like that be the best to provide good, low
cost health care to a country's population? The simple answer is that it
can't. Time to face that fact and move into the 21st century.

Hawke


No, Private Insurers can have a place in our market, but we need much
better regulation to cover them. The current hodgepodge of state and
local regulations allow the insurers to carve up and dominate the
markets by locale. We currently have no defense against them when it
comes to the antitrust and anti-competitive actions they take.

I'm all for private markets, but unless they are forced into some
national model of "fairness," all they can be trusted to do is maximize
profits at our loss.
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

"F. George McDuffee" wrote:
The current Congressional approach appears to be a very toxic
combination of "reinventing the wheel" and "quick, do something
-- don't just stand there." I keep hearing an echo that sounds
like "shut up and drink your Kool-Aid."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones


The only difference is that the poison is in a syringe instead of a
cup? That is, if that moron Allan Grayson is to be believed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Grayson


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

SteveB wrote:

Can you explain why someone like Steve would believe total crap like
that when Rush Limbaugh tells it to him but when the actual truth is told
to him by someone like you or me he refuses to believe it? Is it that they
just don't want to believe it? Is it that they can only accept anything
from certain people? It's really perplexing. These people are like the
ones who for years refused to accept that tobacco was addictive and caused
cancer when the facts were public knowledge for decades. The irrational
American?

Hawke

Uh, because I have seen what the government has done to everything it has
gotten involved in?

Huh?

Steve


President Hoover signed the executive order establishing the VA on
July 21, 1930. They still haven't worked out the kinks, so how in hell
are a bunch of morons in DC going to do any better in a few weeks or
months?

http://www1.va.gov/opa/feature/history/history4.asp or
http://www1.va.gov/opa/feature/history/docs/history4.pdf


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

TinLizziedl wrote:
i want to see the private health insurance companies driven out of business.
Yeah, ditto that. The whole private insurance business model for health
care just doesn't work. The idea that a company that is out to maximize
profits for it's shareholders is the best method to provide good quality
health care for all is a joke. They have to reduce payouts as much as
possible and eliminate as many sick people as they can to increase
profits. How can a system like that be the best to provide good, low
cost health care to a country's population? The simple answer is that it
can't. Time to face that fact and move into the 21st century.

Hawke


No, Private Insurers can have a place in our market, but we need much
better regulation to cover them. The current hodgepodge of state and
local regulations allow the insurers to carve up and dominate the
markets by locale. We currently have no defense against them when it
comes to the antitrust and anti-competitive actions they take.

I'm all for private markets, but unless they are forced into some
national model of "fairness," all they can be trusted to do is maximize
profits at our loss.


I think there will always be a place for private insurance in our health
care system. It just can't be the dominant player or the only way like
it is now. I just saw a program, I think it was 60 Minutes, where a
woman left the U.S. to have a knee replacement done in Singapore. It's
medical system is rated #6 in the world. We are somewhere around #37.
The care and everything are on par with what we have here. One big
difference. It cost 30,000 to do it in Singapore and here the bill would
have been 100,000. That's thanks to our private system. Yes, it works
well if you have money. Unfortunately, every day more and more Americans
are being priced out of the market, and have to go overseas or without.
We really have no choice but to go to a universal system. It's going to
happen. It's only a question of how long until we get it.

Hawke

I think there will always be a place for private insurance in our health
care system. It just can't be the dominant player or the only way like
it is now. I just saw a program, I think it was 60 Minutes, where a
woman left the U.S. to have a knee replacement done in Singapore. It's
medical system is rated #6 in the world. We are somewhere around #37.
The care and everything are on par with what we have here. One big
difference. It cost 30,000 to do it in Singapore and here the bill would
have been 100,000. That's thanks to our private system. Yes, it works
well if you have money. Unfortunately, every day more and more Americans
are being priced out of the market, and have to go overseas or without.
We really have no choice but to go to a universal system. It's going to
happen. It's only a question of how long until we get it.

Hawke


Yep. Without mandating universal cover, our current system has
absolutely no hope of ever reining in the rising costs. Nowadays, too
many indigents and low-income people get their care from emergency
rooms, and all us insured people are paying their way with our higher
costs. There's no such thing as a free lunch!
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:54:02 -0700, TinLizziedl wrote:
In article ,
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:09:20 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Medicare has been starved for enforcement money for a long time.

That's precisely the problem with socialism - enFORCEment.

The Free market AUTOMATICALLY controls prices - if a given service
costs too much, you'll find another provider, because it's in your
self-interest.

Right. Just like it did for the derivatives market. There's a perfect
example of how an unregulated marketplace works, right?

Have you tried to find another insurance provider lately, on an
individual basis? Do you pay for your own insurance, or is it paid by
your employer?

Socialism destroys that option and therefore is the enemy of Freedom
and, as such, is the enemy of The Constitution of the United States,
and MUST be stopped.

Rich, I wouldn't disagree with your basic point but you make it in such
a over-simplified way that I have to shake my head.

Regulation is not "socialism." Government OWNERSHIP of business and
industry is socialism. And as Alan Greenspan and the whole country
learned last year, to our dismay, markets don't automatically "clear."
Competition doesn't automatically appear when the cost of entry is high.

The problems we face now in finance and healthcare are NOT the result of
the free market system being hampered or distorted. They're problems and
limitations inherent in the system itself. Not every market has the
conditions necessary for competition to work. Many markets naturally
tend toward oligopoly or monopoly. Oligopoly, whether it was the car
makers in unspoken collusion with unions in the '60s, or health care
insurance depending upon scale to operate profitably today, is as
natural as free-market competition, if the conditions push the market in
that direction. And they push health care in that direction.


I agree. Too many people get confused about regulation and socialism, and
it's easy for the Republicans in Congress to confuse the issue further by
claiming we are heading for a socialist solution. Even if the government
offered a "Public Option" plan, we still have the option of not enrolling
in it! "Socialism" my furry rumpus.

Just wait and watch. You'll see.

Thanks,
Rich

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:54:02 -0700, TinLizziedl wrote:
In article ,
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:09:20 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

Medicare has been starved for enforcement money for a long time.

That's precisely the problem with socialism - enFORCEment.

The Free market AUTOMATICALLY controls prices - if a given service
costs too much, you'll find another provider, because it's in your
self-interest.

Right. Just like it did for the derivatives market. There's a perfect
example of how an unregulated marketplace works, right?

Have you tried to find another insurance provider lately, on an
individual basis? Do you pay for your own insurance, or is it paid by
your employer?

Socialism destroys that option and therefore is the enemy of Freedom
and, as such, is the enemy of The Constitution of the United States,
and MUST be stopped.

Rich, I wouldn't disagree with your basic point but you make it in such
a over-simplified way that I have to shake my head.

Regulation is not "socialism." Government OWNERSHIP of business and
industry is socialism. And as Alan Greenspan and the whole country
learned last year, to our dismay, markets don't automatically "clear."
Competition doesn't automatically appear when the cost of entry is high.

The problems we face now in finance and healthcare are NOT the result of
the free market system being hampered or distorted. They're problems and
limitations inherent in the system itself. Not every market has the
conditions necessary for competition to work. Many markets naturally
tend toward oligopoly or monopoly. Oligopoly, whether it was the car
makers in unspoken collusion with unions in the '60s, or health care
insurance depending upon scale to operate profitably today, is as
natural as free-market competition, if the conditions push the market in
that direction. And they push health care in that direction.


I agree. Too many people get confused about regulation and socialism, and
it's easy for the Republicans in Congress to confuse the issue further by
claiming we are heading for a socialist solution. Even if the government
offered a "Public Option" plan, we still have the option of not enrolling
in it! "Socialism" my furry rumpus.

Just wait and watch. You'll see.

Thanks,
Rich


I also think we ought to get rid of or reclassify the payroll taxes
deducted for FICA and OASDI so that the money goes into the Public
Option plan. Just like it is today, when you reach eligibility for
medicare and it becomes primary, the public health option should become
primary. It won't matter whether you get hurt at work or not, the same
plan covers you.
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long