Congratulations America!

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

Hey, everyone knows that if you add a couple million folks to something that charges by the "folk", the overall gross cost goes down.

Makes a guy wonder what planet those lefties are from.

First, TD, you will get absolutely no S**t from me for your avatar this time.

Second, I would expect that republicans and corporatists understand that combinations create greater bargaining power. Having everyone in the same pool would provide an ability to get stability in prices through greater barganing power. It would also lower the per capita costs, because insurance companies could not charge astronomical rates for individuals who otherwise could not find coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

As far as I know, I still live on the third rock from the sun.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Twodogs]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

First, TD, you will get absolutely no S**t from me for your avatar this time.

Second, I would expect that republicans and corporatists understand that combinations create greater bargaining power. Having everyone in the same pool would provide an ability to get stability in prices through greater barganing power. It would also lower the per capita costs, because insurance companies could not charge astronomical rates for individuals who otherwise could not find coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

As far as I know, I still live on the third rock from the sun.

Regards,

D-Ray

D-Ray, you ain't thinking this thing all the way through (a common problem with liberal types). Say you got 1000 people and it costs you 100 bux each to insure them. That's 100,000 bux (guys like Eddie and me can do that shit in our heads, cause we're smart). So now you add 300 folks, and they give you a group discount to 80 dollars (a whopping savings). That's 104,000 Somalians my friend. You can't add 45 million people to the insurance rolls and have the cost go down! You can't save enough from medicare fraud, to pay for medicare either! For Barack Husein Obama to get on TV and say he won't sign anything that will add 1 dollar to our deficit is pure bullshit! Just like all the bullshit he spewed on the campaign trail. I had the fecker pegged from day two, it's just ashamed so many others got fooled. Any chance that election in Mass. had anything at all to do with a bad case of buyer's remorse? Come on guys, this ain't rocket surgery or brain science either one.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

D-Ray, you ain't thinking this thing all the way through (a common problem with liberal types). Say you got 1000 people and it costs you 100 bux each to insure them. That's 100,000 bux (guys like Eddie and me can do that shit in our heads, cause we're smart). So now you add 300 folks, and they give you a group discount to 80 dollars (a whopping savings). That's 104,000 Somalians my friend. You can't add 45 million people to the insurance rolls and have the cost go down! You can't save enough from medicare fraud, to pay for medicare either! For Barack Husein Obama to get on TV and say he won't sign anything that will add 1 dollar to our deficit is pure bullshit! Just like all the bullshit he spewed on the campaign trail. I had the fecker pegged from day two, it's just ashamed so many others got fooled. Any chance that election in Mass. had anything at all to do with a bad case of buyer's remorse? Come on guys, this ain't rocket surgery or brain science either one.

Using hypothetical numbers doesn't work well in this case. First off, you're assuming everyone pays the same rate. They don't now nor would they under a revised plan. Second, I believe you're wrong about the deficit reduction. When the CBO examined previous plans- the House plan for instance- they found it did indeed reduce the deficit. They figured it based on numbers based far more on reality than we can likely hypothesize with very little information.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing a semantic point. What does "cost reduction" mean? You're saying that more people paying the same amount into a system can only result in more money being paid in. Of course that would be true. You're making individual cost the constant. If you make the overall amount paid into the system the constant, the average cost per individual would by definition fall.

Of course both of these scenarios are hypothetical and neither probably accurately reflects the complex reality. That's why it takes the CBO a fair bit of time to do these studies. But I think their results are almost without a doubt the most accurate information we have on the question.

Take care,

Ed

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

D-Ray, you ain't thinking this thing all the way through (a common problem with liberal types). Say you got 1000 people and it costs you 100 bux each to insure them. That's 100,000 bux (guys like Eddie and me can do that shit in our heads, cause we're smart). So now you add 300 folks, and they give you a group discount to 80 dollars (a whopping savings). That's 104,000 Somalians my friend. You can't add 45 million people to the insurance rolls and have the cost go down! You can't save enough from medicare fraud, to pay for medicare either! For Barack Husein Obama to get on TV and say he won't sign anything that will add 1 dollar to our deficit is pure bullshit! Just like all the bullshit he spewed on the campaign trail. I had the fecker pegged from day two, it's just ashamed so many others got fooled. Any chance that election in Mass. had anything at all to do with a bad case of buyer's remorse? Come on guys, this ain't rocket surgery or brain science either one.

In business there are generally two types of costs, "fixes" and "variable". Fixed costs, like say the mortgage payments on your building, don't change as a function of increased business. As a result, increasing the number of customers (insureds) results in a decrease in cost per customer. What that means is the insurance company can lower its premiums and the profit per customer stays the same and since there are more customers the overall profits increase.

John (149, 99th)

[Twodogs]

It just don't add up to this hayseed. How about the folks who get it given to them? There will be those folks, and all they will do is "work the system", just like generation teaches generation now to "work" the welfare system. I can just see them hounding and hounding the doctors untill they get whatever dope they want. Anything free is always abused, it's just human nature. We have a pop cup at work that you put 25 cents in for a pop. When it was free, there was more pop thrown out than drank. Human nature.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

D-Ray, you ain't thinking this thing all the way through (a common problem with liberal types). Say you got 1000 people and it costs you 100 bux each to insure them. That's 100,000 bux (guys like Eddie and me can do that shit in our heads, cause we're smart). So now you add 300 folks, and they give you a group discount to 80 dollars (a whopping savings). That's 104,000 Somalians my friend. You can't add 45 million people to the insurance rolls and have the cost go down! You can't save enough from medicare fraud, to pay for medicare either! For Barack Husein Obama to get on TV and say he won't sign anything that will add 1 dollar to our deficit is pure bullshit! Just like all the bullshit he spewed on the campaign trail. I had the fecker pegged from day two, it's just ashamed so many others got fooled. Any chance that election in Mass. had anything at all to do with a bad case of buyer's remorse? Come on guys, this ain't rocket surgery or brain science either one.

For your calculations to make sense, you have to assume that no money was going out for the other 300 in the first place. When some of those 300 are using the ER because they can't pay to get into a regular doctor, and can't pay the ER bill, we all absorb some of that cost. When some of the 300 avoid treatment for medical conditions, or don't discover those conditions until they are worse, they are likely to end up on a government program such as medicaid or medicare. Moreover, if they become disabled because they don't have the money to get early care, they are no longer earning money and contributing to the economy (and paying taxes). Instead, they are dependent on government benefits.

Let's say that just two of the individuals became disabled because of their condition. In your deflated example, the gov't is paying 1000 each for them. Another 50 fall into poverty because of their medical expenses, and start depending on the gov't to pay their medical bills. Because the gov't is paying all of the freight there, the cost is 200 per. Lets say that another 50 let their medical conditions deteriorate before they become eligible for medicare. That ends up costing medicare and extra 50 per person. 100 of the others use the ER and raise the costs for everyone by 10. The other 300 beat the odds, and don't get sick, so they cost society nothing.

So in that group of 300 we have

2 x 1000 = 2000
50 x 200= 10000
50 x 50 = 2500
100 x 10 = 1000

15,500

Now you go back to your calculations, and again assume that the percapita cost goes down to 80 when everyone enters the pool. The real cost for society for all 1300 before the 300 actually became covered under the pool plan was 115,500. That is about a 10% savings when the pool knocks the total cost down to 104,000. OK, I admit we were both pulling numbers out of thin air, but I doubt anyone would disagree that uninsured citizens create additional costs for the government and for society in general. We are all paying those costs in one way or another.

Just another perspective from another inhabitant of this planet. We lefty types are just thinking it through in a little more detail.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

The people who now get health care for free are getting it in the emergency room, unquestionably the most expensive place for treatment. Insuring everybody (ideally through a single payer system) would unquestionably be the cheapest per capita. Countries with such systems have per capita costs about half of ours and better outcomes to boot. Unfortunately, such a system is off the table.

I agree that the current House/Senate proposals will do little to control costs as it increases the number of people covered. That is my biggest criticism of it. As important as cost control is, the Dem's punted on it because cost control measures are easily demagogued and have become radioactive (e.g., death panels).

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

It just don't add up to this hayseed. How about the folks who get it given to them? There will be those folks, and all they will do is "work the system", just like generation teaches generation now to "work" the welfare system. I can just see them hounding and hounding the doctors untill they get whatever dope they want. Anything free is always abused, it's just human nature. We have a pop cup at work that you put 25 cents in for a pop. When it was free, there was more pop thrown out than drank. Human nature.

Well, this is a different question. It's also a difficult one. Let's be clear, though. we're not talking about giving 40 million people free insurance. The plans call for subsidies on a sliding scale, depending on need. Some of us are so poor that we very well might get it for free but that number will be fairly small.

Now, I don't see it so much as controlling fraud and abuse. That happens now. The potential problem I see is over-utilization but several things occur to me. First, Medicaid is free. Is that over-utilized? I don't know. What systems are in place to control it? Are they effective? Could they be "scaled up" to handle a larger load of patients? Second, in all the countries which have single payer national health care programs there must be some who have effective means for controlling over-utilization. Why not look at them?

John

[finnbow]

Let me add the following stat's that might help illustrate the dilemma we're in. The US spends about twice the amount per capita of the other industrialized countries. Nearly all of these countries achieve these savings (and better results) through single payer systems.

One often hears the argument that health care represents about 16% of GDP and that the Government shouldn't be tinkering with that big of a fraction of our economy. If we could devise a system that would reduce the per capita costs to align with the other industrialized nations, that 16% would be reduced to 8-10%. These savings represent lost earnings to those with vested interests in keeping the system as expensive as it is and these are the very people fighting tooth and nail against health care reform. End of story.

[Dr. Music]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Exactly. If someone could return our economy to the condition it was in when Clinton was in office, would anyone care if the intern gave him a blow job? I wouldn't. I once heard Chris Rock say something to the effect "hell, *I'll* give the man a blow job!" I'm not quite to that point. But I sure wouldn't care what he did on his own time if he could get us going the right way.

Hell, I didn't care when it happened. More people had jobs and made decent wages. But there was a contingency dedicated to get Clinton for something, anything. By the time his second term was through his hands were tied in doing pretty much anything presidential. I don't think any president was as closely scrutinized before or since.