The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

Insurance should be a government service for 100% sure as access to needed health care should be a right, not a privilege.

Anyway, here's some poll data showing Obama getting a boost among unmarried women that was in the Washington Post.

greenbergchart.jpg



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...2/16/gIQAmYbFIR_blog.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Insurance should be a government service for 100% sure as access to needed health care should be a right, not a privilege.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to disagree with this a bit - I don't favor a government takeover of the health insurance industry or government health insurance. Such a thing would simply create an additional level of bureaucracy that would end up costing more and being less efficient.

*If* we're turning health care into a socialized service, then we simply need government (local? state? Federal?) ran, taxpayer funded health services.

Currently, I wouldn't support such an effort because I don't believe our current Federal government is in any shape to take on such a project (I mean, saving lives? How do you use tanks and bombs to do that?) - but that's where I feel we should be headed towards. All these measures of dealing with Health Insurance are a joke.

If nothing else, it inevitably leads to the jokers who complain that they want the government to provide health insurance, then complain about employers who don't provide health insurance, forcing people to get it from the government. That train of thought always makes my head spin.
 
On the other hand, this could be an equal access issue from the other direction. If a woman works at a Catholic institution and wants the pill for whatever reason, does the institution have the right to deny the pill as a medical expense if they insure in-house?

Liberty!
 
[quote name='Clak']Have we told bob to move to Somalia yet? We have, haven't we?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

...and people call me a troll. Not a single person will call you out for this because of their history of siding with you on social/economic issues. Basically, you get to constantly and repeatedly post BS trolling comments like this and no one says a word. So, congrats on your "I get to troll for free" card.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Insurance should be a government service for 100% sure as access to needed health care should be a right, not a privilege.[/QUOTE]

I was reading a thread on a popular website where someone was asking for advice on how to keep their sick mother alive (to the trolls the entire healthcare package has not kicked in yet so fuck off).

Republicans are actively fighting for the right to kill sick people for money.

Every time a con complains we are being mean to them they should have more abuse heaped on them. I refuse to think of anyone anti-healthcare reform as a human being any more.

Every single one of their objections is based on false premises and this was explained in a multi-year "discussion".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']dohdough,

I don't smoke. I know that some folks do. I'm okay with that.
I'm also okay with private businesses determining that they don't want smoking allowed on their property.
I'm also okay with individual retailers or chains deciding that they do not want to sell cigarettes.
I'm not okay with the government determining that smoking indoors should be illegal.
I'm not okay with the government banning the sell of cigarettes.

I can be okay with the idea of myself or individuals choosing to do/not do something without being okay with the idea of government restrictions on it.

Insurance isn't a charity. It's a business. That is the primary issue here. If we want to make health care a charity or a service of the government, we need to do that - head on. Half measures like this serve only to empower the Federal Government and limit the freedoms of our citizens.

The very idea of the government coming in and forcing a private business to provide a particular service or sell a particular product isn't something I'm fond of.[/QUOTE]
You're basically arguing that the goverment should have no ability to regulate anything. There's reason why we don't have that anymore. Care to take a guess as to when and why?

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm going to disagree with this a bit - I don't favor a government takeover of the health insurance industry or government health insurance. Such a thing would simply create an additional level of bureaucracy that would end up costing more and being less efficient.[/QUOTE]
Good thing health insurance companies are so much more efficient that Medicare! Too bad they're not. Medicare is at 8% with costs added from other government agencies at the most and private insurance is at 14% at the very lowest. Those numbers are sourced from the Heritage Foundation(LOLZ).

*If* we're turning health care into a socialized service, then we simply need government (local? state? Federal?) ran, taxpayer funded health services.
Click to expand...
What the hell do you think a UHC system is?

Currently, I wouldn't support such an effort because I don't believe our current Federal government is in any shape to take on such a project (I mean, saving lives? How do you use tanks and bombs to do that?) - but that's where I feel we should be headed towards. All these measures of dealing with Health Insurance are a joke.
Click to expand...
Half-assed measures you say? I guess you're right because the Democrats are a bunch of fear-mongering imperialists shoving things down everyone's throats! The Republicans are the lone voice of sanity in our government.

If nothing else, it inevitably leads to the jokers who complain that they want the government to provide health insurance, then complain about employers who don't provide health insurance, forcing people to get it from the government. That train of thought always makes my head spin.
Click to expand...
Please tell us how and why this throws you for a loop.

[quote name='UncleBob']Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

...and people call me a troll. Not a single person will call you out for this because of their history of siding with you on social/economic issues. Basically, you get to constantly and repeatedly post BS trolling comments like this and no one says a word. So, congrats on your "I get to troll for free" card.[/QUOTE]
Your response tells me that you're more concerned with "government" that does "stuff" you don't like than your concern about government. That makes you an ideologue...a shitty one at that.
 
A Rick Santorum supporter's comment Thursday that women used to use "Bayer aspirin for contraceptives" was just a joke that flopped, according to the candidate and the supporter who told it
"This contraception thing, my gosh, it's so ... inexpensive," Friess said on MSNBC. "You know, back in my days, they'd use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."
...
Santorum said "Foster is known in political circles as telling a lot of jokes, and some of them are not particularly funny, which this one was not. He's not creepy. He's a good man. He's a great philanthropist. He's a very successful businessman."
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...traceptive-remark-was-bad-joke/#ixzz1mfq48vFp
 
[quote name='dothog']The birth control issue has been enjoyable. Say goodbye to the female vote! I guess they've still got the evangelical wharrgarbls.[/QUOTE]

I'm surprised it's not taking a bigger hit on the male vote as well. I mean, talk about being out of touch with the electorate. It's not even an issue that really pulls in the religious vote as their are a lot of religions that permit the use of birth control, even some of the more conservative religions like Mormonism.

This just strikes me as a really reactionary thing. Obama said one thing, so someone like Santorum feels he immediately has to take the opposite stance.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You're basically arguing that the goverment should have no ability to regulate anything.[/quote]

And someone arguing for same-sex marriage is also arguing for people to be allowed to marry animals.

Good thing health insurance companies are so much more efficient that Medicare! Too bad they're not. Medicare is at 8% with costs added from other government agencies at the most and private insurance is at 14% at the very lowest. Those numbers are sourced from the Heritage Foundation(LOLZ).
Click to expand...

I talk about getting rid of health insurance at all and you reply with comparing privatized health insurance with government-funded health insurance?

It's like I'm suggesting to replace the doughnuts in the breakroom with fresh fruit and you're talking about how the powdered doughnuts are better for you than the cream filled ones.

What the hell do you think a UHC system is?
Click to expand...

The only time I've spoken out against a universal health care system is when it comes to the idea of our current federal government (by current, I don't mean "Obama") running it. Fix the government, then let them have at it. If you put a corrupt government in charge, then it will simply breed more corruption.

Half-assed measures you say? I guess you're right because the Democrats are a bunch of fear-mongering imperialists shoving things down everyone's throats! The Republicans are the lone voice of sanity in our government.
Click to expand...

Republicans vs. Democrats. I think some of you stick to this fantasy because it's so much simpler to believe there's a group of people out to help you and a group of people out to get you and you can honestly identify them by the letter after their name. Anything more complicated than that is too much for you to handle.

Please tell us how and why this throws you for a loop.
Click to expand...
"I want the government to provide health insurance, but don't want the government to provide health insurance."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And someone arguing for same-sex marriage is also arguing for people to be allowed to marry animals. [/QUOTE]
Which is funny because you're the one arguing that the government shouldn't have the right to regulate private business. Feel free to continue to strawman me like you usually do. I really wish you had the knowledge to stump me because your ignorance is really boring.

I talk about getting rid of health insurance at all and you reply with comparing privatized health insurance with government-funded health insurance?
Click to expand...
Did you or did you not say that government provided health coverage would be more inefficient(increase bureaucracy and costs) than current private health insurance providers? Or maybe you can explain what "I don't favor a government takeover of the health insurance industry or government health insurance. Such a thing would simply create an additional level of bureaucracy that would end up costing more and being less efficient" means.

It's like I'm suggesting to replace the doughnuts in the breakroom with fresh fruit and you're talking about how the powdered doughnuts are better for you than the cream filled ones.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're arguing that powdered donuts are just as bad because they're "bad," so let's keep the cream-filled ones anyways and since we're keeping them, put some chocolate frosting on those bitches.

Stop with the analogies. You really fucking suck at them.

The only time I've spoken out against a universal health care system is when it comes to the idea of our current federal government (by current, I don't mean "Obama") running it. Fix the government, then let them have at it. If you put a corrupt government in charge, then it will simply breed more corruption.
Click to expand...
This is funny because this: "*If* we're turning health care into a socialized service, then we simply need government (local? state? Federal?) ran, taxpayer funded health services." describes exactly how UHC is run. That's like saying that if we're going to have tv's, we're going to need electricity to power them...uhhh...no shit? Are we going to use rainbows instead?

And to your point about curruption, what makes you think that the current insurance providers aren't corrupt as fuck?

Republicans vs. Democrats. I think some of you stick to this fantasy because it's so much simpler to believe there's a group of people out to help you and a group of people out to get you and you can honestly identify them by the letter after their name. Anything more complicated than that is too much for you to handle.
Click to expand...
The Republicans are evil. This is a fact. The Democrats are less-evil. This is also a fact. I don't think any liberal here would stand up and say that the Democrats are out to "help" us, but at least they'll slip a roofie in our drink and use lube. The Republicans just want to put a wine bottle up our asses and see how many whacks with a stick it can take before it breaks. For someone so lacking in scruples, I find it amusing that you trot out the lack of nuance trope on me.

"I want the government to provide health insurance, but don't want the government to provide health insurance."
Click to expand...
Which is another funny thing because "If nothing else, it inevitably leads to the jokers who complain that they want the government to provide health insurance..." means that they want health insurance guaranteed by the government, "then complain about employers who don't provide health insurance..." means that they still want health insurance, and " forcing people to get it from the government." means that people want and need insurance, so they need to look to the government to provide it. Like WTF, are you schizophrenic or something? Because the conclusion of what you just posted is nothing even close to what I just bolded.

I see a bunch of buzzwords strung together, but you seem to not be able to make anything intelligible with them. Stop fucking trying and post at an appropriate vocabulary level. Seriously.
 
Holy... why do I even bother...

[quote name='dohdough']Did you or did you not say that government provided health coverage would be more inefficient(increase bureaucracy and costs) than current private health insurance providers?[/quote]

I did not.

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm going to disagree with this a bit - I don't favor a government takeover of the health [size=+5]insurance[/size] industry or government health [size=+5]insurance[/size]. Such a thing would simply create an additional level of bureaucracy that would end up costing more and being less efficient.[/QUOTE]

*If* we're turning health care into a socialized service, then we simply need government (local? state? Federal?) ran, taxpayer funded health [size=+5]services.[/size]
Click to expand...

I mean, seriously, you quoted my very own post and you still didn't catch that.

You see how we have police and fire departments? They're set up without co-pays, monthly bills, etc., etc. We need to cut out all this insurance bull and just have government owned/operated hospitals, clinics, etc. (Hey, woah, I want to give more power to the government). This doesn't mean that private hospitals/clinics can't still exist - likely to give better quality service or "electives" for those who have the money to spend. This just means we can end the entire "insurance" thing and cut out that entire layer of bureaucracy.
 
This is funny because this: "*If* we're turning health care into a socialized service, then we simply need government (local? state? Federal?) ran, taxpayer funded health services." describes exactly how UHC is run. That's like saying that if we're going to have tv's, we're going to need electricity to power them...uhhh...no shit? Are we going to use rainbows instead?
Click to expand...

"I am for government healthcare but only when the government is literally perfect."
 
[quote name='Msut77']"I am for government healthcare but only when the government is literally perfect."[/QUOTE]

It just goes to show how fucked up in the head UB is.

He will bend over backwards, if he wasn't such a spineless coward he would break his fucking back, defending corporate malfesance.

But he wants to elminate government because it is not perfect.

His utopia is 1984 where "Big Brother" is replaced with "Big Walton"
 
I see it as there being no point in having further discussion.

I mean it is as not as if a conservative will come up with the some new argument that isn't based on false pretenses to begin with.

Arguing with cons about healthcare reform is like a read your own adventure book where every option is to get punched in the dick.
 
[quote name='camoor']It just goes to show how fucked up in the head UB is.

He will bend over backwards, if he wasn't such a spineless coward he would break his fucking back, defending corporate malfesance.

But he wants to elminate government because it is not perfect.

His utopia is 1984 where "Big Brother" is replaced with "Big Walton"[/QUOTE]

Could you be anymore dishonest with your posts?
 
I agree with UB. I don't think that it makes much sense to have government funded health insurance for everyone. It would be simpler to just have the government (federal, state, or local) provide healthcare services.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Holy... why do I even bother...

I did not.

I mean, seriously, you quoted my very own post and you still didn't catch that.

You see how we have police and fire departments? They're set up without co-pays, monthly bills, etc., etc. We need to cut out all this insurance bull and just have government owned/operated hospitals, clinics, etc. (Hey, woah, I want to give more power to the government). This doesn't mean that private hospitals/clinics can't still exist - likely to give better quality service or "electives" for those who have the money to spend. This just means we can end the entire "insurance" thing and cut out that entire layer of bureaucracy.[/QUOTE]
Hold on a second. So you're saying that you don't support UHC strictly because GOVERNMENT!, so we shouldn't regulate the insurance industry for more coverage that'll save them money in the long run, but if GOVERNMENT! ever magically gets your approval, then fuck insurance and turn it into a municipal public service like the police and fire department?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hold on a second. So you're saying that you don't support UHC strictly because GOVERNMENT!, so we shouldn't regulate the insurance industry for more coverage that'll save them money in the long run, but if GOVERNMENT! ever magically gets your approval, then fuck insurance and turn it into a municipal public service like the police and fire department?[/QUOTE]

In a simplified and sarcastic nutshell, yes.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Arguing with cons about healthcare reform is like a read your own adventure book where every option is to get punched in the dick.[/QUOTE]

lmao :lol:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']In a simplified and sarcastic nutshell, yes.[/QUOTE]
So we should be left with cream-filled donuts until the right fresh fruits come along that are grown organically under a red moon? And if that never happens then fuck it?
 
[quote name='dohdough']So we should be left with cream-filled donuts until the right fresh fruits come along that are grown organically under a red moon? And if that never happens then fuck it?[/QUOTE]

As opposed to replacing the cream-filled doughnuts with rat poison? Yes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to replacing the cream-filled doughnuts with rat poison? Yes.[/QUOTE]
More equivocation? Even AFTER I provided a source that states that Medicare costs less than insurance? What the fuck is in those cream donuts then? Ebola that'll make you experience all the symptoms in 10 seconds and then kill you?

I guess powdered donuts is worse than cream-filled ones?
 
For someone who rallies on about how evil and inefficient private health insurance companies are, are you really trying to say that you favor the PPACA over what we have now? All it needs is a pretty bow and a greeting card to make the perfect gift for so many of the larger health insurance providers.
 
All con objections to reform are made up as needed.

One moron in the Obamacare thread stated they would only accept UHC in other countries as legitimate if literally every single person agreed it was good.

Someone pointed out you cannot get EVERY SINGLE PERSON in a country to agree fireboming middle schools is bad and they just moved on to the next round of stupid.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']For someone who rallies on about how evil and inefficient private health insurance companies are, are you really trying to say that you favor the PPACA over what we have now? All it needs is a pretty bow and a greeting card to make the perfect gift for so many of the larger health insurance providers.[/QUOTE]
I'd say that people with pre-existing conditions like pregnancy and dependants upto age 25 or whatever are pretty happy with those changes. To say that it was only a gift to insurance companies is only half-truth.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hold on a second. So you're saying that you don't support UHC strictly because GOVERNMENT!, so we shouldn't regulate the insurance industry for more coverage that'll save them money in the long run, but if GOVERNMENT! ever magically gets your approval, then fuck insurance and turn it into a municipal public service like the police and fire department?[/QUOTE]

The insanity (or a la carte dishonesty) of UncleBob's logic is succinctly revealed here by doughdoh, and yet when doughdoh asks "hey, dude, is this really what you mean?" - Bob says YES.

I'm not opposed to universal health care, but I want it to come from this source and not this source.

Which is silly on another level altogether since it is logically impossible for a free-market UHC option. It defies logic.

Alternately, Bob is simply setting up impossibly unrealistic utopian goals as a means of implying he's a reasonable person coming from 'the middle'.

The shocking thing is that Bob is married, so he settled somewhere along the way. If he applied the same standard to selecting a spouse that he does to accepting UHC, he would die alone and unwed.

That demonstrates his insanity or dishonesty.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which is silly on another level altogether since it is logically impossible for a free-market UHC option. It defies logic.[/QUOTE]

Speaking of dishonesty... This is the first time in this thread or any other (hell, anywhere) I've ever heard anyone come up with any kind of suggestion for a "free-market UHC" system. Which you imply is something I'm wanting. In your post. Where you came up with it.

I can't believe Myke seriously wants our army to be replaced with cyborg unicorns that shoot rainbows out of their backsides. This shows how dishonest and insane he is that he'd even suggest such a thing.

Oh, you didn't? Hm.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The only time I've spoken out against a universal health care system is when it comes to the idea of our current federal government (by current, I don't mean "Obama") running it. Fix the government, then let them have at it. If you put a corrupt government in charge, then it will simply breed more corruption.[/QUOTE]

Alternatively, I wouldn't be completely against a system ran by the individual states (in fact, would almost prefer something like that)... except that I live in Illinois and we all know how corrupt our government is here.

illinoislicenseplate.jpg
 
The reform bill that passed had provision that allows states to form their own system if it met the baseline set by the bill. Once again cons push BS.
 
Original UB Post: The only time I've spoken out against a universal health care system is when it comes to the idea of our current federal government (by current, I don't mean "Obama") running it. Fix the government, then let them have at it. If you put a corrupt government in charge, then it will simply breed more corruption.

UB Reply: Alternatively, I wouldn't be completely against a system ran by the individual states (in fact, would almost prefer something like that)... except that I live in Illinois and we all know how corrupt our government is here.

Did anyone else notice that now UB is now arguing with himself.

I mean - the guy makes an assertion, then he replies to that assertion with an alternative, then he discounts that alternative in the very next sentence

He's losing it bigtime :lol:
 
[quote name='camoor']Original UB Post: The only time I've spoken out against a universal health care system is when it comes to the idea of our current federal government (by current, I don't mean "Obama") running it. Fix the government, then let them have at it. If you put a corrupt government in charge, then it will simply breed more corruption.

UB Reply: Alternatively, I wouldn't be completely against a system ran by the individual states (in fact, would almost prefer something like that)... except that I live in Illinois and we all know how corrupt our government is here.

Did anyone else notice that now UB is now arguing with himself.

I mean - the guy makes an assertion, then he replies to that assertion with an alternative, then he discounts that alternative in the very next sentence

He's losing it bigtime :lol:[/QUOTE]

Wow. You have a hard time comprehending things, eh?

I offered two slightly different solutions (Universal Health Care provided by the government - Federal or State). However, a very reasonable first step before giving either one of these already powerful groups virtually complete control over life and death is to "fix" them.

You may often undertake large tasks by jumping in head first and hoping nothing goes wrong that you can't fix on the fly... however, I prefer to attempt to plan ahead as much as possible and - even though I can't account for the unknowns - account for the knowns that will pop up along the way. If I can address them before I start instead of just hoping they don't become an issue along the way, all the better.
 
I'm surprised you vote for Ron Paul.

It's one thing to say, like he does, that the things the Federal Gov't does are unconstitutional and it should be left to the states. Things like environmental regulations, banking regulations etc.

But he believes that any government involvement in the 'free market' is bad. You clearly don't. Why vote for Paul?

And what specifically would you need to see 'fixed' before you were okay with the government (local or state) offering everyone free health insurance?
 
[quote name='IRHari']I'm surprised you vote for Ron Paul.

It's one thing to say, like he does, that the things the Federal Gov't does are unconstitutional and it should be left to the states. Things like environmental regulations, banking regulations etc.

But he believes that any government involvement in the 'free market' is bad. You clearly don't. Why vote for Paul?

And what specifically would you need to see 'fixed' before you were okay with the government (local or state) offering everyone free health insurance?[/QUOTE]

Some things shouldn't be left completely to the free market.

As far as fixing the government, I'd say that spending needs to be under control, collusion between private citizens and the government needs to end and there needs to be a big "butt out" when it comes to private decisions (for example, the idea that the government can deny funding to a valid medical procedure isn't something I'm a fan of).
 
And bob sits there thinking that we're all fine with corruption. Spending we can argue on as far as where spending is too high, but I don't think anyone, here or otherwise, is fine with corruption.

The problem though, is that a completely corruption free government is probably about as pie-in-the-sky as one can get. It's something we'd all like, but the grownups among us know it isn't going to happen. Saying that you don't want "x" until corruption is dealt with is akin to saying you don't want it at all, because it's likely that no government will ever be without corruption.
 
[quote name='Clak']And bob sits there thinking that we're all fine with corruption. Spending we can argue on as far as where spending is too high, but I don't think anyone, here or otherwise, is fine with corruption.

The problem though, is that a completely corruption free government is probably about as pie-in-the-sky as one can get. It's something we'd all like, but the grownups among us know it isn't going to happen. Saying that you don't want "x" until corruption is dealt with is akin to saying you don't want it at all, because it's likely that no government will ever be without corruption.[/QUOTE]


I think the point you are missing here is that on one hand you complain about how the private sector influences, buys, and bullies the government into doing what it wants despite what is good for the people. On the other hand you are giving the keys to that same government, and saying "hope that the private sector doesn't interfere"
 
[quote name='Knoell']I think the point you are missing here is that on one hand you complain about how the private sector influences, buys, and bullies the government into doing what it wants despite what is good for the people. On the other hand you are giving the keys to that same government, and saying "hope that corrupt private sector doesn't interfere"[/QUOTE]

Yeah nothing is perfect. Therefore I'd rather put my trust in the guy that pays me lip service and occasionally throws me a bone (IE the politician) then the "greed is good" guy (IE the CEO).

At least I can vote against a corrupt politician.
 
We have no idea what kind of preventive measures would be in place in a theoretical UHC system. Of course I don't want any corrupting influence involved in it, then again I also understand that it's likely to happen to some extent, simply because it's a program being run by human beings. I wish we had thousands of Elliot Ness clones running things, but we simply don't, most people are not untouchable. The system we have now is already corrupt in one way or another, and plenty of people seem fine with it even, but you involve the government and suddenly everyone is worried about corruption. Well, where the hell were those people before? Is it because they make a distinction between private corruption and public corruption?
 
[quote name='Knoell']I think the point you are missing here is that on one hand you complain about how the private sector influences, buys, and bullies the government into doing what it wants despite what is good for the people. On the other hand you are giving the keys to that same government, and saying "hope that the private sector doesn't interfere"[/QUOTE]

While this is a valid point to a degree, here's my retort:

First, we must define corruption. For the sake of this discussion, I think it's fair to call corruption serving one's self-interest to the detriment of others (i.e., one that lack utilitarian promise).

A government official can theoretically be a person who serves the public interest. Their corruption is possible, and perhaps even likely - but it is always an aberration in that it deviates them from their primary responsibility (serving the public).

A corporation is never an entity that serves any interest but its own. It is a hedonistic entity, staffed by people who exalt and support its hedonistic goals with no regard to the public at large. Corruption is endemic to the corporation, a natural part of its very being. The deviant entities are those that seek to serve the pubic good, and those that serve the public good are vilified by others (e.g., CostCo getting reamed by shareholders for paying too high a salary to its laborers).

Therefore, I'm a liberal.
 
You can have private sector health insurance for example and make it work, the problem is when you allow them to make profit off of denying people care.

This has been pointed out before to put it mildly.
 
I still get a kick out of the "our govt is a feckless mess of inefficient red tape" argument getting applied to the possibility of a govt run health insurance system, given that Social Security has an administrative budget of roughly 1.5% and Medicare/Medicaid isn't much higher. Meanwhile administrative costs at major insurers run into the 15-20% area.

Your Heritage argument is an interesting one in that Medicaid receipients have high care costs, thus administrative costs are less of a % of the whole. Essentially, comparing the apples of admin costs isn't apples at all since even though they're both apples one of them is a death metal band or something. They don't even begin to bother with any research into WHY the costs may be higher on a per beneficiary basis in Medicaid. It must be the inefficiency of the govt, and not that they've got more claims per beneficiary since they, well you know, have higher costs because they have more services provided.
 
[quote name='nasum']I still get a kick out of the "our govt is a feckless mess of inefficient red tape" argument getting applied to the possibility of a govt run health insurance system, given that Social Security has an administrative budget of roughly 1.5% and Medicare/Medicaid isn't much higher. Meanwhile administrative costs at major insurers run into the 15-20% area.

Your Heritage argument is an interesting one in that Medicaid receipients have high care costs, thus administrative costs are less of a % of the whole. Essentially, comparing the apples of admin costs isn't apples at all since even though they're both apples one of them is a death metal band or something. They don't even begin to bother with any research into WHY the costs may be higher on a per beneficiary basis in Medicaid. It must be the inefficiency of the govt, and not that they've got more claims per beneficiary since they, well you know, have higher costs because they have more services provided.[/QUOTE]
Right, I was actually wondering when someone was going to mention that article by Heritage. Another difference is that insurance companies are pretty much populated by patients that, to a certain extent, have resources to cover most medical issues and preventative care, where as Medicare/-caid has to cover the poorest of the poor. So Medicare/-caid patients are more expensive to cover? No shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top