On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:13:33 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
> 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.")"
Let us understand that Medicare "B" and "D" are the primary shortfalls
but that the article is perpetrating a lie of sorts in insinuating that
these were to be supported by the Medicare tax. BOTH Medicare "B and "D"
were passed as general revenue supported programs. Those programs WERE
NOT defined to be funded by the Medicare tax.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicare4.htm
In his lust to **** all over social insurance the author of this rag
fails to distinguish this fact. And as these programs were never
intended to be supported by the Medicare Tax then there are no "unfunded"
liabilities any more than defense is an "unfunded" liability. In essence,
based on the actual LEGISLATION that created these programs,THERE IS NO
GAP. The projected income form Medicare taxes and premiums is $57.4T
(his numbers), but there was never any intent for Medicare taxes to fund
parts "B" and "D" in any way. He has wrapped up the Medicare tax and the
paid in premiums in a toxic enchilada designed to be employed by
Republican pig prancers to sew their seeds of fear and distrust of
government. I have no numbers on How much of his toxic enchilada is
STOLEN Medicare taxes that are supposed to be placed in the Medicare
trust fund specifically for Medicare "A", and how much is paid in
premiums. But the article is nothing other than the continued assault by
Republicans on social insurance systems and government in general.
1. The drug program (Medicare "B") as done by the Republicans and George
butt sucker Bush is nothing other than big wet kiss for the drug
companies. They totally crippled the monopsony power of government in
controlling costs and just shoveled money into the pockets of their
supporters. And now they are here using this poison pill as they attempt
to take down the whole Medicare program.
2. Medi-gap is yet another hand out to the insurance companies that is
full of fraud and abuse and which is intended to be addressed in the
scope of current reform legislation. And when we cut the amount we will
pay for a hospital bed, the provider of the bad can suck on it or have an
empty bed. They may also find their pencil pushing butts in the slammer
for failure to abide by the laws. Seniors are the primary users and they
control that market. Cuts in that area are not cuts in benefits. They
are cuts in COST.
3. Medicare is made available to all people regardless of income level
and unlike Social Security, Medicare benefits are not tied to taxes paid
in. Even if the rich only worked for wages for 1.5 years in their entire
rich bitch lives, Medicare benefits are awarded in full. Yet the
Medicare tax is only assessed on _WAGE_ income. The Medicare tax should
be increased, made minimally progressive and levied on _ALL_ income
regardless of source. With that adjustment the Medicare "A" trust fund if
taken off budget like Social Security would swell pretty fast. At present
the money is raided to feed general revenues.
Medicare "B" and "D" are funded from general revenue BECAUSE they have
NOTHING TO DO WITH paid in wage taxes. NOTHING. And BECAUSE they are
open to all regardless if income or asset ownership. My own opinion is
that Medicare in its entirety should be OFF BUDGET and that a NEW
progressive Medicare tax should be used to fund the system in a totally
transparent and honest fashion.
The care of the elderly and the demographic problems do not exist because
Medicare is a federal program. The problems exist in ALL countries
whether or not government is involved. The prancing Republican pigs like
to leave the impression that government intervention is the cause of the
rise in costs. It isn't. And assuming that we are going to care for the
elderly, the best way that costs can be contained is through the
monopsony power of government.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson