part of the reason health care costs so much

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

what are you babbling about now...?

you thanked me for the recap and asked I had anything else, thus my response...now this...note to jlew, urine and corn flakes don't mix well....

I asked you a direct question. this place is for debate is it not? are you only interested in cute one liners or actual debate?

let me know

VINNY GOOMBA

inmytree wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

inmytree wrote:

this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"

vs.

"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"

Allow me to clarify the "government sucks" point of view for you. It is still possible to be in that camp and still believe that government is capable of providing services to the people-- it just works far better the more 'local' it becomes. Let the states figure things out more than the federal government. It's their RIGHT to do so, actually. This explains why, for the most part that poice, fire, sometimes roads work out OK. There is more control by the people at this level. The more layers of government you add on top of what we have already, the more complicated things become, and ultimately taxpayer money just gets thrown at the problem. It's about efficiency and putting the people funding these programs in control more.

hey, vinnie, quick question...do you work for the gov't...? just curious...personally, I have worked for both private companies and worked for a gov't agency...

I have never worked for the government.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

actually, both of those answers are acceptable and intelligent, just seemingly not to you. just b/c we are bigger thn other countries does not mean we cannot follow or learn from their model to see how they fund it and afford it. you seem to be the only one who doesn't see that. we're bigger = bigger taxbase = more $$$ to fund UHC.

its not an intelligent answer. and intelligent answer would provide specific examples of other governments programs and how we can apply it here. whenever you're ready...

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I have never worked for the government.

what a restrained answer.
given your views on government, especially the fed govt...i thought for sure this question would be greeted by a hearty at least at first.




getting back to the heart of the thread topic.....i have to say, absolutely, these salaries/stock options/whatever....most definitely are a part of the problem. our healthcare should not be a means of getting rich. healthcare should be just about that.....health....care......not a for profit business. this is not to say that those who make our healthcare possible...doctors...nurses.....scientists...researchers...shouldn't get well paid, they absolutely should! but it is entirely unnecessary to have fat cats earning millions for overseeing a corporation built to be a money-making machine. healthcare shouldn't be a 'business' imo.



jlew....again...others have. i don't see you rehashing your rationale over and over, yet you expect everyone else to, just for you. you want to lecture on what's intelligent and what's debate...more power to ya. your condescension knows no bounds.... and i am far too lazy to do that in any case - i never provide links, and i never even used other governments in my arguements. as i said tho, i am not going to rehash my points for you. we've already covered em, in detail, elsewhere...and you dismissed em, so why would i bother? i just dislike you telling others what is intelligent and acceptible, or not. i didn't realize you got to set the game rules.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...

theres a shocker.

tell me this...why do you think we can afford UHC? how do we pay for it?

fyi, "other countries do it" isn't an acceptable or intelligent answer.

didn't we cover this?

we all pay for heathcare now...

my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor

In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks

there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

jlew....again...others have.

no they haven't

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...

theres a shocker.

tell me this...why do you think we can afford UHC? how do we pay for it?

fyi, "other countries do it" isn't an acceptable or intelligent answer.

didn't we cover this?

we all pay for heathcare now...

my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor

In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks

there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that

why can't we make such savings without going to a 100% government control system? how about some regulation in the insurance industry? what do you think about that?

edit: and I do see there are savings in UHC. that doesnt mean we can afford it. we are still talking about tax payer costs into the trillions.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

what are you babbling about now...?

you thanked me for the recap and asked I had anything else, thus my response...now this...note to jlew, urine and corn flakes don't mix well....

I asked you a direct question. this place is for debate is it not? are you only interested in cute one liners or actual debate?

let me know

in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...

what was your question again...?

inmytree

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I have never worked for the government.

ok...thanks for the answer...as I said, I've worked for both, and both have there issues...while gov't may get a bad wrap...the issues you mention are similar in private industry...

I do wonder, if you've not worked for the gov't, where do you get you ideas as to how it runs...?

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...

they aren't cute. they really lame and immature.

inmytree wrote:

what was your question again...?

go read it. or dont bother. you've proven you aren't capable of intelligent debate.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

.

yes but remember we are paying for it now

If we go UHC and I no longer pay $1,000 month for health insurance but my taxes go up $1,000 month I'm still good right?????

come on man

gimmesometruth27

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...

they aren't cute. they really lame and immature.

inmytree wrote:

what was your question again...?

go read it. or dont bother. you've proven you aren't capable of intelligent debate.

:roll:

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

.

yes but remember we are paying for it now

If we go UHC and I no longer pay $1,000 month for health insurance but my taxes go up $1,000 month I'm still good right?????

come on man

what are you quoting?

decides2dream

Gern Blansten wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...

theres a shocker.

tell me this...why do you think we can afford UHC? how do we pay for it?

fyi, "other countries do it" isn't an acceptable or intelligent answer.

didn't we cover this?
we all pay for heathcare now...

my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor

In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks

there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that

thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.


*that ALONE would probably save billions...maybe more. couple that with our new tax contributions (individuals + private companies) in lieu of payments to an insurance carrier = funding for UHC. i think we can afford it, i do believe it's doable, just thinking of these 2 issues alone....more than possible.


it's getting RID of the 'for profit' nature of healthcare, and all these for profit organizations based around it tht is the REAL problem, tho it shouldn't be....

jlew24asu

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

:roll:

what are you rolling your eyes about skippy? did you not see my direct question to him, and his lame response about me "babbling about something"?

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.

fantastic! problem solved! just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

.

yes but remember we are paying for it now

If we go UHC and I no longer pay $1,000 month for health insurance but my taxes go up $1,000 month I'm still good right?????

come on man

what are you quoting?

you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.

fantastic! problem solved! just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable.

actually, that is EXACTLY what it means........
and we're not talking clipping coupons here...we're talking BILLIONS, perhaps more.....in savings...
you don't see it, idk what else to tell ya.

Gern Blansten wrote:

you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?

not only that...b/c it's not just a 'middleman' it's a HUGE money-making profit machine. get rid of that profit, and costs go down, significantly.....seriously significantly. all medical staff/scientists/researchers still well paid, but there will be NO CEO getting a few million each year, etc. incredible savings. healthcare for healthcae...not for profit.



btw - and this is where the 'argument' comes in that w/p profit there is no innovation or quality of care.....which is BS, honestly. there IS quality of care in many health programs....medicare has a higher rathe of patient satisfaction over private insurance (as per the interview with the healthcare insider)....government funding already exists for numerous medical research, innovation intact.


after that, it comes down to just not wanting the government having control. fair enough i guess....but should just say that. i honestly don't know why tho. i seriously cannot imagine the government ham-handling our healthcre any worse than these private companies. this idea of having 'choice' really is a myth imo. the only 'choice' is to choose not to have healthcare, not a wise option imo, and in all honesty...it's in ALl our OWN best interests, in the long-term of costs, for EVERYone to have and utilize healthcare, especially preventative healthcare. beyond that, my 'choice' of healthcare...is entirely dictated by my employer. not much choice there. and w/o emplyer sponsored healthcare...many are simply SOL. great choices....

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...

they aren't cute. they really lame and immature.

inmytree wrote:

what was your question again...?

go read it. or dont bother. you've proven you aren't capable of intelligent debate.

I told you, urine and corn flakes don't mix...but then again you never bother to listen to anyone other than yourself...as others have said, your question have been answered...however, since you can't comprehend those answers, you assume they were not answered...apparently that's super "intelligent" thing to do...

and you're a confusing fella. first you compliment me then you try to hurt my feelings by saying I'm immature, lame, and that I'm not intelligent...I suppose personal attacks are part of "intelligent debate"...of which you seem to so desperately want...yet you offer none...

well, you can always cling to the "we can't afford it but I offer nothing other than we can't afford it" argument...that seems to working just fine...

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

:roll:

what are you rolling your eyes about skippy? did you not see my direct question to him, and his lame response about me "babbling about something"?

yet another example of "intelligent debate"... :(