rahl

Why does everyone insist on blaming insurnace companies for the outrageously high costs of treatment in this country?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dippin

Saying a single payer system is better is not the same as blaming insurance companies. It is a mere recognition of the fact that healthcare is a right that private markets will often fail to provide.

As for who is to blame for increasing healthcare costs in the US, part of it is this insane system that is employment based and driven by risk segmentation. But a major part of it, beyond any doubt, is significantly higher overhead costs.

rahl

Ok, i can atleast see your point of view on this.

I have a serious question now that isn't meant to be condescending or glib or anything like that. In my opinion, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all of which are govn't run programs, though well intentioned, are a complete disaster. They are all broke and they are all being severly abused. How does the govn't think it can run something as massive as Single Payor in this country(I understand it may work in other countries, but I'm talking about this one) when all the other social programs they currently run are seriously flawed?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dippin

based on what are you saying that medicare, medicaid, and social security are any more flawed than their counterparts?

rahl

For starters, the President, when outlining his plans for paying for this bill, stated that He wanted to fix the inefficiencies and wasteful spending in medicare in order to pay for this latest govn't plan. Both medicaid and social security are abused on a daily basis.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dippin

I didn't dispute that there is waste and abuse. I am asking based on what do you think that they are any worse than their private counterparts (nevermind the fact that many of these programs exist precisely because the market didn't want to provide those services).

rahl

My point is that you want to blame insurance companies for the rediculously high costs of treatment. By having the govn't pay for these treatments instead of insurance companies, all you would be doing is changing the method of payment, not the cost of payment. It is at best a lateral move

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dippin

We've talked about this before: every single payer system in the world has lower overhead costs than the US's current system. And all it takes is a stroll through the HR department of any company to see how many people are there simply to deal with the health insurance part of it, or through the billing department of any hospital, and it's clear why.

And as I said, it is a lot less about the health insurance companies being "evil" and a lot more about a competition model that is driven by cost segmentation and a market that is employer based.

pan6467

I pay close to $100 every pay (it would be $300 if I included my son and wife), now because of that I would love to find a market open for individuals and be able to pay a lower premium. But that is not available.

Instead of government coming in and taking over, entering my life and soon making decisions because they have to now worry about medical costs.... why not subsidize a market for individuals. IT takes the burden off the employer, allows the individual to decide how much coverage how much he/she wants to pay.

Why should a 25 year old pay the same amount as me for health insurance? I admit, I'm older and more of a risk, especially with a known condition (Sarcoidosis). Maybe the employer can have several programs through different companies to choose from and you pick what is best for you.

There are so many other options government could have gone and taken that would have been far cheaper and better fo ALL PEOPLE. The one they chose to jam down our throats is wrong, plain and simple.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

rahl

I'm sorry but now your doing the very thing you accuse me of doing, speculating. Other countries aren't this one. Now let's say your right for a moment, wouldn't you then be eliminating a large number of jobs from just about every company in this country, specifically HR departments?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dippin

So you are saying that an inefficient system should be sustained because of the jobs involved?

And other countries aren't this one, some basic economic principles still apply. It is simple logic. You eliminate overhead costs associated with maintaining and providing several different types of insurance, and costs go down. There is no hidden variable that would counterbalance this here.

But if you need evidence from this country, medicare is significantly more cost effective than private insurance:

Assessing the Viability of Medicare: Testimony for The Joint Economic Committee Hearing

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...t/22/2/230.pdf

By the way, overhead costs associated with medicare are estimated as being between 2 and 5% of all costs. Private insurance has 16 to 31%....