11/6/2009 Peter Schiff On The Glenn Beck Show : Fannie Mae Implements Deed-For-Lease Program

Make Sure To Subscribe To Peter Schiffs' Official YouTube Channel At http://www.youtube.com/user/SchiffReport To Be Notified Immediatelly When Peter Posts A New Economic Video Blog Update!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Visit http://www.PhilDeCarolis.com to sign up for my free weekly newsletter that includes Economic and Real Estate updates or for more Peter Schiff videos and real estate advice from an experienced Investor/Realtor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Connect With Me On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1255246954&ref=profile#/people/Phi...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Me On Twitter: http://twitter.com/PhilDeCarolis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Peter
• Schiff
• Ron
• Paul
• Barack
• Obama
• Marc
• Faber
• Infowars
• Alex
• Jones

[judoyodan]

informedskeptic,

You are missing the point. Again. The system we have is flawed from the start. It will not work no matter how much "tort reform" and "competition" is adopted. The system is flawed FUNDAMENTALLY.

Every other developed country, and some "devolping" countries, have realized this. The vast majority of them have a better functioning systems than us, to differing degrees. We even spend twice what the nearest country does on care per capita. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

[judoyodan]

Our system of employer based health insurance distances the patient from the cost loop. That 3rd party distance gives the patient no incentive to economise, look for the best offer etc.

If we took the burden off of employers they would be able to produce their goods and services at a lower cost, making them more competitive on a global scale. Higher employment would ensue.

If we incentivised people to be more conservative with their health care, the cost curve would come down.

[informedskeptic]

Now you're showing your true colors. I thought you weren't a "big gov't person". Baloney. Please show the source of your numbers, as I think it's pure nonsense. Having worked for the gov't, I can tell you efficiency is the last thing on their mind. Did you know the biggest percentage of rejections of coverage come from Medicare? Profit margins of insurance companies run about 4%. Hardly greedy and if we allowed competition companies would be less likely to get away with it.

[informedskeptic]

Alright typo. S/h/b "self-funded".

Do you think doctors forced that hip replacement on grandma? I agree with you on funding, but funding should be slowly reduced over time. Doing so, however amounts to political suicide. Tort reform has to be a part of the solution as well. Look at Edwards famous cerebral palsy case. Look at breast implants. In hindsight, an unintended joke, sorry. Sure fraud reduction is part of the equation too.

[judoyodan]

In answer to your question, I will take "government inefficiency" over corporate greed ANY DAY!

Medicare has a 3% overhead cost. It is 30 to 40% in the private sector.

It is an inherrant conflict of interest to have a company responsible for health care when it only makes money if it doesn't give out said care. It is an unworkable model fundementally.

The medicare buy-in represents the best solution, combined with an incentive to involve the public in the cost loop.

[judoyodan]

"sel-unfunded"...what the hell does that mean?

Anyways, the bottom line is that there will have to be major changes to the medicare program in the years to come. Funding it on it's current course is impossible. (i.e. my 90 year old grandma might not be able to get that new hip that she didn't really want to begin with).

Maybe it's not such a good idea to allow doctors to have a financial interest in expensive diagnostic services. etc.

These are all part of the solution.

[informedskeptic]

I additionally noticed you never addressed the financial aspect of Medicare, Medicaid, the deficit, the inefficiency of gov't run programs. Do you have an answer or do you just bury your head in the sand?

[informedskeptic]

If healthcare is self-unfunded, why do we need the gov't to be involved? The gov't needs to end its exception to the commerce clause allowing states to block competition across state lines. This would allow people to buy plans that meet their individual needs. For example, I do not need or want abortion coverage for my family. Why should I be forced to buy it? Perhaps, I just want coverage for just large medical expenses. I'm currently locked into my employers plan with no options. Why?

[judoyodan]

Health care is NOT like any other commodity. If you don't understand those dynamics, then this discussion is pointless.

The "medicare buy-in plan" would be self funding, as the people under 65 would pay monthly to get medicare coverage. There are sveral benefits to this idea and we should adopt it ASAP. Rep. Alan Grayson has a bill, H.R. 4789, that does just that. I suggest you research it.

[informedskeptic]

We both know Medicare isn't properly funded now. Our unfunded liabilities are over $100 trillion and you want to add to it. Gov't must shrink drastically. Look at Greece's situation. We'll be there soon.

Life isn't fair, but people aren't dying in the streets. Socialized medicine has very big problems on their own. No innovation, rationing, etc. Bluntly, I don't trust the gov't to run anything.

Health insurance should be purchased the same way we purchase any other commodity.