Public Option

[4lifejackhammer]

go ahead; take the profit out of human suffering. Before long, the profit will have to be taken out of everything, and we all just work for and beg from the government.

[4obaba]

Are you saying that you think people should be able to profit from human suffering? I guess it's better to work to support health insurance companies and beg them when we need them to perform...

[4lifejackhammer]

Does not a doctor profit off this concept of "human suffering?" But, assuming we did take the profit out of this, where is the incentive to do well. The Bureaucracy is separate from elected officials, and they keep their earnings (tax-dollars) regardless of performance. Instead of targeting the insurance, we should target out of control costs, something the government cannot truly control.

[4obaba]

--Does not a doctor profit off this concept of "human suffering?"--

No. A doctor makes a living from alleviating human suffering. Yeah, they make too much money until you research how much money and perseverance it took to become a doctor.

--But, assuming we did take the profit out of this, where is the incentive to do well.--

Have you ever been in love?  Was it for profit? Do you write these posts for profit? For some of us, the incentive is a moral imperative to perpetuate humanity. You?

[4lifejackhammer]

its the motive of profit that leads to better allocation of resources. The paperwork is bigger for medicare, and yet there is still tons of waste. We don't need a public option to ensure that. And, the only way government knows how to contain costs is mandate it, aka price fixing, which, since they won't be mandating higher prices, will lead to health shortages.

[4obaba]

Okay, then, let's work on getting rid of waste. What's your solution?

[4lifejackhammer]

well, without trying to change the balance of private sector-public sector, it would involve being more investigative into claims medicare and medicaid recipients file. Also, keeping files up-to-date would be a large benefit; one scam is to use dead people to obtain their prescription medication. Basically, just making sure information is better transmited. After all, gov. doesn't "want" to waste more than it must.

[4lifejackhammer]

one idea I heard in that regards is to make some kind of easily accessible data base, like on a credit card. You still only hand your information out only to those you trust enough, but it makes it easier to update information on a patient, thus making it easier to find out, on the insurer's (medi... included) part certain things. Now, in the case of the government and medicare/caid, this could be something attached to the medicare/caid card.

[4obaba]

I thought competition was what you were exulting. Why are you so against the public option? Check it out. Public Option is competition with the Private pigs who profit from human suffering....

[4lifejackhammer]

adding government is not competition. government does not have to earn profit. The eventual domino effect would ruin private insurance. Which, as pigs go, might be alright, except then we only have 1 insurance company, which does not suffer the effects of failure. You may get new faces, but they are as unaccountable in the end as the last faces. They will still get big pensions for however they do.

[4lifejackhammer]

real competition would be eliminating the state lines for health insurance. Right now, each company has only a few competitors. Now, eliminate the lines, for economic purposes. They have people in other states they can try to take. Instead of simply adding one unfair firm, you would add several potential competitors. The way economics work, they must reduce premium prices.

[4lifejackhammer]

the profit motive is meant to keep failures out. My "moral incentive" is to try to stop an experiment doomed to failure for attempting to go against all economic sense. If government could do it efficiently, and all the good stuff people talk about, then it would work. The problem is that government has a history of spending more than they originally state, and on fraudulent things.

[4obaba]

Okay, then. Let's work on improving government.  The election of Obama was a start. Embrace it and you shall prosper.

[4lifejackhammer]

rhetoric will make it happen? Barack obama has not run anything business-wise in his life; the most i would concede to him is that he would make an excellent secretary of state. Much of the stimulus, passed out with his administration, went to fake zip codes, fake districts, and pet projects of legislators. Regardless of whether you believe in the keynesian, friedman, or this new "abandon to save" approach, this is fraud. embracing 1 politician will not help us make government more efficient.

[4obaba]

Yep, like Medicare. Do you hear old folks complaining. Would you rather sped the money to for tax cuts for the rich, like Bush did? Listen to your "moral incentive".

[4lifejackhammer]

i would rather cut both taxes and spending. Cutting just one, the taxes, does not really help. And, another example of how embracing one politician cannot help. Oh, and don't forget, he's the one that started the whole "abandon capitalism to save capitalism" crap.

[4lifejackhammer]

We are focusing on the wrong thing, though; instead of looking at the lesser of two evils between 504 boards and one all-powerful-unaccountable board, lets look at why the hell we need the boards. Rising costs. The reason they are rising? Shortage of doctors. We need to make it that the AMA simply has the licenser tests, and gets out of the medical school business. Also, no limits on licenses issued per year. Create competition.

[4obaba]

Yeah, let's lower the standards so that the competition actually kills some people. Then we'll know who is the best. If we're still alive.

Come on, man, your caveman mentality belongs to another previous century...

[4lifejackhammer]

I did not say lower the standards of licensure. Im suggesting letting the market find, if possible, a better way to train doctors. As it is, the AMA will only release a certain amount of licenses per year, and each requires 6 years of medical school where you learn many basics of fields the doctor may not want to pursue. It is a one size fits all that creates a massive barrier to entry. As you pointed out earlier, cost to doctors require them to charge so much. 10+years of loans dont help.

[4obaba]

Again the AMA does not issue licences. Half the doctors don't even belong to the AMA. Google man, google. Remember the old Russian proverb, "trust but verify" (no, Reagan didn't come up with that on his own). Please verify, then we can argue more intelligently!

[4lifejackhammer]

thank you, i needed that. States do issue liscenses. AMA handles the education of doctors, and acts as a regulator. The best "regulator" though, in practicality, is malpractice. The more people you screw up on, the easier it is to mount a case. The AMA doesn't do as much to police doctors as it does to plea for Doctors; which is constitutionally fine and all. But, why must all Doctor's learn family medicine?

[4obaba]

Doctors' fees are around 15% of the total medical costs. By the way, the AMA doesn't issue licenses. The individual states do. Please, man, check your facts. Get educated beyond your High School diploma. You sound intelligent, but, it takes more than the ability to calculate quicker than the average person. You also need verifiable facts to work with.

[4lifejackhammer]

The AMA does, though, legislate for higher standards. Now, that seems good, except when people need doctors and can't afford them because they are too few. The real trick is more medical schools; and, making it that the medical boards of states (who always have AMA people on it) only hand out licenses, and not a limited amount. same standards at the end, but experiment on how to get there. The restriction of lisenses reduces possibility of doctorhood.

[4lifejackhammer]

further, the barriers needed to be overcome with the AMA to become a medical school is vast. Why? Don't we have licensing programs to ensure most "bad doctors" don't make it to the field? Why create that extra hurtle.

[NemSoha]

Social security is bankrupt (government operated), as is Medicaid (also gov't-run) and the postal service (again)...and these are the people we want to be in charge of our health care? I don't think so! It is impossible, despite what Obama says, to avoid rationing and not raising the deficit. If we don't borrow more money and we're not going to increase taxes (taxes are high enough already) he has to get it from somewhere else...cutting $500 billion from medicaid, which is rationing.

[NemSoha]

That is why we are seeing them say now that women should not have an annual mammogram until 10 years older than before, pap smears are not being suggested like before, and just this week they are saying prostate checks for men. This is just the beginning of their rationing, because we can't afford to pay for everyone. The trillion dollar cost will undoubtedly rise much higher than the gov't said, just like Medicaid and every other program they've instated.

[NemSoha]

Furthermore, I pay enough for my health insurance as it is (I pay individually, not part of a group). I don't need to be taxed to pay for other people too. Under the bill, you are required to have health insurance (completely different concept from auto insurance, as not everyone owns a car) and if you don't you will be fined. If you do not pay the tax, you go to jail, as if our prisons aren't already overcrowded. "Give me Liberty or give me death" If I want Socialism, I'd move to Europe.

[NemSoha]

That is not to say we don't need reform. We need to fix the system, not change it entirely. We also need more freedom and less government control. Let the free market work and flourish the way it was designed. Cut out the bureaucracy and government intervention at every level and we'll see good results. Our forefathers began a revolution over these beliefs and ideals...we are in no position to fundamentally change the system as we were told we would do in 2008.

[4obaba]

The fact is that profits at 10 of the countrys largest publicly traded health insurance companies in 2007 rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to U.S. Securities and Exchange omission filings. In 2007 alone the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total compensation of $118.6 million—an average of $11.9 million each. Rather than "Nem Soha" try "Yes We Can!"

[NemSoha]

We were also promised unemployment wouldn't rise, then it did to 10.2%. Where was the debate we were supposed to see on CSPAN? There wasn't any, only backdoor policy making. He is running our debt through the roof. His debt is the total of all the presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush combined, and you complain about insurance companies profits...

[4obaba]

False. No one PROMISED. Maybe, hoped. Are you serious? His Debt? Oh, yes, it is his now.  He inherited it. Didn't he? You forgot to mention that...

[NemSoha]

Who was the Speaker of the House in 2006? Nancy Pelosi. Who took over control of the Senate and House of Reps? Democrats. Who was part of the Senate? Obama. He inherited it from himself and the other Dems... an inconvenient truth.

[4obaba]

NemSoha, your reality described above doesn't correspond with the facts. As long as you insist on making up the facts, we have nothing more to discuss. I can only suggest more research or less pálinka :-)

[4lifejackhammer]

"inherited"? barack Obama chose to run in order to better fix the mess. He also voted for TARP, one of the largest increases to the Bush Deficit. This isn't by a long shot to say Bush did right; this is to say Barack chose to help fix the problem, and he so far hasn't. And that's without healthcare and cap-trade.

[4obaba]

Hmm... "NemSoha" translates from Hungarian to "NoNever". Hope your profit margin is higher than the 2.1% you mention below. Do they pay you by the word count to spew these overused talking points?

[NemSoha]

Overused talking points? Try ignored points by the Democrats. Their bill is out of line with the desires of main-stream America. It is not what the majority of the people want, yet our "representatives" don't have any interest in representing us at all. They merely seek to push their own agendas.

[4obaba]

The the people voted for Obama's ideas just a short year ago. Elections count in this country. Do you disagree? Your republicans bankrupted this country. It will take some time before some our representatives will serve their country instead of catering to push agendas that they falsely believe will get them re-elected. It's not about IDEOLOGY any more, my friend. Obama is a pragmatist. What will work for America is more important than the philosophical sophistry that has dominated the past.

[4lifejackhammer]

"What will work for America is more important than the philosophical sophistry that has dominated the past." Is that to say, we should all accept something because a bunch of lawyers said so? I mean, a bunch of lawyers got us into to wars, if you recall.

[NemSoha]

The insurance companies' profit margins are only 2.1% The true number of the uninsured in America is 12 million (excluding all the illegal immigrants, young people who choose not to have insurance, and people who make over $70k/yr). Tort reform, allowing insurance to be sold over state lines, and some other things have been proposed in a bill to lower the costs to give more people access to health insurance, but the Democrats did not want to lower costs. They want to change the whole system