On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:49 -0500, John Galt wrote:

> 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?
>
> Coburn's incorrect, but you figured that out for yourself. :-)

Coburn is _NOT_ incorrect at all on the stuff you are attempting to
suggest below.

> Here's the data:
>
> 1) Medicare has lower administrative costs when they are calculated as a
> % of total health care costs managed. Medicare is at 3%, the private
> insurers are at 12%.

FACT.

> 2) That seems more efficient, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
> Medicare is a seniors health care program, while private insurers cover
> those not on Medicare. Put another way, Medicare covers people who need
> a lot more heath care (or are sicker, with more deadly diseases) than do
> private insurers, whose members are, on average, far healthier.

FACT.

> 3) That means that the average claim size that Medicare handles is much
> larger than that of the private insurers. It takes just as much admin
> time to handle a $50,000 bill than it does a $50 bill.

NOT TRUE. Smaller claims are seldom contested claims in either case.

> 4) Further, Medicare just processes whatever they are given mindlessly,
> while the private insurers spend time contesting and investigating
> claims to eliminate fraud and lower costs.

LIE. (see below)

> That balloons admin costs but
> results in lowered health care costs. You don't see that fact
> illustrated in a pure admin/cost comparision.

Contested claims DO add to the costs in the private sector MORE THAN IN
THE MEDICARE SYSTEM. How much of it there is remains undefined.

> 4) If you look at administrative costs on a PER PERSON basis rather than
> a percent-of-claims basis, Medicare's admin costs were 24.8% higher than
> the private insurers.

In other words: If we turn the data over to the rightarded stink tanks
they will figure out a way to mash numbers and lie like hell.

> Charts are he
>
> http://timerealclearpolitics.files.w...dmincosts1.gif
>
> (Coburn can be expected to shriek when he sees the 'Heritage' logo, but
> a dislike for a particular organization is not a refutation.)

In the case of Cato or Heritage all claims are refuted out of hand. This
pig shit is a good example. We don't see overhead per claim here. The
per claim data will again swing back to favor the Medicare
administration. On the per person basis older people make a LOT MORE
CLAIMS than the youngsters. And a lot of those claims are quite small.
Many are simply for drugs, and the seniors use a lot of drugs.

> Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.

Yet another religious opinion from Galt.

> Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either uninformed
> or lying.

Anyone who basis an analysis on numbers from Cato or Heritage are
religious zealots OR morons. I think I pretty well stomped the crap out
of Galt's claim concerning the overhead.

>> 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.")"
>>
>>
>>


--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson