On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:03:39 -0500, John Galt wrote:

> 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...s.com/2009/06/
admincosts1.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.

Like I said, Galt, your claims about the Private sector being more
efficient are shown to be spun Heritage pig manure. -- per patient
statistics my achin' ass.

>>>> 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