Michael Coburn wrote:
> 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.
That will be a first.
>
>> 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.
Yes. An irrelevant one to the discussion. Medicare and the private
insurers are in different market segments, and thus cannot be compared
by such puerile metrics.
>
>> 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.
True. Proven. Data shown. Get over yourself. You're not the brightest
bulb in the universe. You prove that every day.
>
>> 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)
Then scratch it out. It's not germane to the overall point, and I'm not
in the mood to quibble with you over trivia. Past experience shows that
you are unable to focus on the core assertions and are easily distracted
by bright, shiny objects on the periphery. I suspect adult ADD, but I'm
not in the mood to diagnose your many dysfunctional characteristics.
>
>> 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
Ooh. Coburn's inner fifth grader comes out. Shall we all do a group
"naner, naner, NAAAner......!"
What a jokester.
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.
Only by the idiots of society. Discarding factual evidence due to source
is a well-known logical fallacy. If you had been involved in high school
debate, you'd know that, because you'd have gotten your school
disqualified the first time you tried it.
But, don't worry yourself. The educated people here know a logical
fallacy when they see one. We'll take it from here.
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.
There is no one more religious in your pursuit of fiction than you.
But, I always admire your ability to parse out relevant facts in pursuit
of the ones that back up your preconceptions. You have a lot in common
with the thought patterns of a Baptist preacher. Come up with a theory,
search out verses that can be interepreted to back up that theory, and
for God's sake disparage anyone who suggests that there are other verses
that dispute you.
Same stuff.
>
>> 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.
Of course you do. You're a legend in your own mind. Nobody who can do
the math, however, missed the overall point, which is simply that
comparisons between companies operating in two different market segments
have to account for the difference in those segments.
Your inability to understand changing conditions is largely responsible,
I would guess, for your failure as a human being. Sorry about that.
JG
>
>>> 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.")"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>