View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to misc.invest.stocks,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ,soc.retirement,rec.food.cooking
Lawyerkill Lawyerkill is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!

On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
> >> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
> >> THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
> >> GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
> >> SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.

>
> > Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
> > print money?

>
> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision for
> government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making certain
> that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to insure
> competence and quantity. �At present we have the most bloated and
> expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control
> costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers shift the
> prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one another and
> who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. �For some unknown
> reason this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is
> actually a black mark against the "free market" health insurance
> companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.
>
> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
> "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If such
> fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively than
> private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government debt. �It
> can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a totally off
> budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us that such
> mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of money to
> hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social insurance
> systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is
> paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in
> premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is
> stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the
> funds. �Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the future. �
> Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter what you do
> the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. �That is how
> INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.
>
> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
> a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and then
> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
> of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and Medicare
> Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
> lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
> a low cost.
>
> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
> does the private insurance sector.



Then why is Medicare going broke?


http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap
is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a
fancy term for "today's dollars.")"