FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   General Cooking (https://www.foodbanter.com/general-cooking/)
-   -   Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care! (https://www.foodbanter.com/general-cooking/176868-re-obamas-top-five.html)

martin 13-09-2009 06:18 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 13, 10:13*am, "US Army Veteran" > wrote:
> Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.
>
> During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an
> individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly
> ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy
> coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will
> this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he
> asked Hillary in one debate.
>
> Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the
> mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and
> Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every
> American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making
> employers share in the cost."
>
> But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to
> those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care
> approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.
>
> Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.
>
> Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting
> that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that
> individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast
> bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax
> credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable
> and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying
> this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in
> history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently,
> Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have
> doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."
>
> Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse
> scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it
> will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations,
> McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he
> intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the
> tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he
> would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that
> expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay
> for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about
> putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.
>
> In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to
> do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in
> history.
>
> Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the
> private sector.
>
> Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the
> elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to
> model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after
> Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why?
> Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs
> and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to
> 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to
> competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will
> release health care dollars for universal coverage.
>
> But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency..
> Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised
> Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service
> Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to
> reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative
> to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.
>
> In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even
> the functioning aspects of private plans.
>
> Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.
>
> Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a
> public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more
> options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As
> I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that
> government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by
> underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans
> more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this
> forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if
> that weren't Obama's intention.
>
> But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to
> run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama
> repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more,
> University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key
> influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a
> public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a
> Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."
>
> But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan
> that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and
> without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.
>
> At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government
> guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage..
> This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve
> requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it
> is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any
> start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates
> with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason
> for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.
>
> Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.
>
> Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last
> week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system
> wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under
> private plans. This is complete nonsense.
>
> The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an
> old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life
> because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big
> difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every
> night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing
> occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I
> can consume.
>
> By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale
> unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1
> billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the
> relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so
> objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct
> financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will
> find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet
> deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines
> of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a
> new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified
> managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison
> with this.
>
> Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health


America needs a total rebuild. Support nothing seeping from the
cesspool Washington,DC.

tt

http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices


Michael Coburn 13-09-2009 09:42 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:18:18 -0700, martin wrote:

> On Sep 13, 10:13*am, "US Army Veteran" > wrote:
>> Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.
>>
>> During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an
>> individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he
>> repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force
>> people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh
>> penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to
>> garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.
>>
>> Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the
>> mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont.,
>> and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for
>> "making every American responsible for having health insurance
>> coverage, and making employers share in the cost."
>>
>> But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do
>> to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health
>> care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.
>>
>> Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.
>>
>> Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for
>> suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care
>> tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage,
>> but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the
>> form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made
>> coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama,
>> however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the
>> removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax
>> your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't
>> think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you
>> should have to pay taxes on them too."
>>
>> Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse
>> scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or
>> so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's
>> allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase
>> because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised
>> by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told
>> Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back
>> the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored
>> plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike
>> McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or
>> credits in the hands of individuals.
>>
>> In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out
>> to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time
>> in history.
>>
>> Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than
>> the private sector.
>>
>> Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for
>> the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama
>> wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public
>> option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health
>> care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower
>> administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for
>> Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says,
>> subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering
>> such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal
>> coverage.
>>
>> But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater
>> efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year
>> chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional
>> fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage
>> benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise
>> its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it
>> noted on page 93.
>>
>> In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not
>> improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.


So much for Forbes.

This particular lie really trumps all the rest. The previous two points
are Obama simply willing to compromise in order to get a rational plan
onto the books. But this one is an outright lie from Forbes. Obama has
actually articulated a plan to cut some waste from the Medicare system
and has been attacked for it. Yet this Forbes article now complains that
medicare needs to focus on costs as opposed to efficient administration.
The duplicity is very obvious here. It amounts to the fact that Forbes
is interested in defeating Obama as a person/Democrat and/or any reforms
at all. And that is their real objective.

>> Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer
>> monopoly.
>>
>> Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with
>> a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more
>> options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer
>> monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking
>> given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of
>> controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by
>> charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare
>> will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private
>> plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.


THIS CHARGE NOT NECESSARILY TRUE OR EVEN CLOSE TO BEING TRUE. ASSIGNING
INTENTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS IS PRETTY HARD TO DO. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE EVEN
BASED ON PAST ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS BECAUSE PEOPLE CHANGE AS THEY MOVE
THROUGH LIFE AND GAIN NEW EXPERIENCE.

>> But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided
>> to run for office--and even during the initial days of his
>> campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer
>> system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob
>> Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape
>> explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a
>> single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just
>> right there."


BUT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THE DIFFERENTIAL
BETWEEN PRIVATE SECTOR COSTS AND PUBLIC SECTOR COSTS. THE DIFFERENTIAL
IS CAUSED BY THE MONOPOSONY POWER OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING BOTH MEDICARE
AND THIS NEW SECTOR OF THE MARKET IN REGARD TO PROVIDER FEES. FORBES HAS
STATED THAT THIS WILL SHIFT COSTS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I CAN SEE NO
REASON FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO _ALLOW_ THAT, BUT I'LL GO ALONG FOR SAKE
OF ARGUMENT IMAGINE THAT THE COSTS PASS TO PRIVATE SECTOR PREMIUMS THUS
PUTTING THE PRIVATE SECTOR AT A DISADVANTAGE.

THE PUBLIC OPTION MAY ADJUST ITS RATES UPWARD AND USE THE "PROFIT" (THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IT PAYS PROVIDERS AND THE AMOUNT IT GETS FROM
JACKED UP PREMIUMS FOR THE SAKE OF RESCUING THE PRIVATE BLOOD SUCKERS) TO
SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS AT THE BOTTOM AND/OR TO SUBSIDIZE
MEDICARE. IN THAT WAY THE "PRIVATE" SECTOR REMAINS IN THE LOOP TO OFFER
MORE AND BETTER BENEFITS TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD THEM. I'm not really
sure what these more and better benefits might be, but then, I don't
really give a damn. The point is that it is entirely possible to ALLOW
the private blood sucking thieves to survive. It ain't a priority with
me but it certainly seems to be a priority for Forbes.

>> But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public
>> plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field
>> and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.


HOGWASH. THE PUBLIC PLAN HAS TO CRIPPLE ITSELF TO ALLOW THE PRIVATE
INSURANCE SECTOR TO EXIST. IT IS AMAZING HOW LIARS CAN PLAY BOTH ENDS
FROM THE MIDDLE. FAR FROM "FEEDING OFF THE PUBLIC TROUGH", THE PUBLIC
OFFERING WILL HAVE TO CHARGE MORE FOR ITS INSURANCE OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
WON'T BE ABLE TO COMPETE. WE SHOULD BE TAKING ABOUT HOW BEST TO USE THE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WILL BE GENERATED INSIDE THE PLAN TO BEST ADDRESS
OTHER PRIORITIES.

>> At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit
>> government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would
>> lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's
>> capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private
>> plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan
>> wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle
>> to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these
>> things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be
>> just like any other private plan.


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.

>> Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.
>>
>> Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last
>> week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run
>> system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront
>> under private plans. This is complete nonsense.


NOPE.

>> The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out
>> an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact
>> of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But
>> there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and
>> champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real.
>> Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of
>> a particular good I can consume.


YET ANOTHER LIE BY FALSE ANALOGY. CAVIAR IS NOT A LIVER TRANSPLANT. YOU
CAN DAMNED WELL EAT BEANS AND CORNBREAD BUT WITHOUT THE LIVER TRANSPLANT
YOU DIE.

>> By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a
>> scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits
>> over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will
>> evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself
>> wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board
>> will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments.
>> In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or
>> non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care
>> bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system,
>> where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug,
>> until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care
>> plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with
>> this.
>>
>> Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health


AND TRUTH IS WHAT IS NEEDED. THIS ARTICLE FROM FORBES IS AN ILLUSTRATION
OF LIES THAT ARE COMING FROM THE RIGHTARDED. WHEN OBAMA TRIES TO
COMPROMISE IT IS SEEN AS A LIE AND PROMOTING THAT VIEW IS ALL THAT
MATTERS TO THE RIGHTARDED. THIS HAS BECOME A BEAT OBAMA FEST AS OPPOSED
TO A HEALTH INSURANCE DEBATE.


> America needs a total rebuild. Support nothing seeping from the cesspool
> Washington,DC.
>
> tt
>
> http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices






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

Sure,Not 14-09-2009 04:18 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
> 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?

Michael Coburn 14-09-2009 07:51 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
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.

INSURANCE is a totally different ball of wax than is a car company or a
construction firm or a legal services outfit. It is also a different
ball of wax than a mutual fund or an investment house. You do not need
the insurance company to do the investing for you. The money you save by
not _GIVING_ it to them to "invest" can be placed in your own 401K and
invested in that way instead of them making the decisions in their own
best interest. The function of an insurance system is to offer the
lowest cost EFFECTIVE insurance as possible. And there is no reason for
profit motives to exist in such a system. Every aspect of insurance on a
scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics.
Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change so
quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. It is a VERY
PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly.

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

Lawyerkill 14-09-2009 08:13 PM

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.")"




Lawyerkill 14-09-2009 08:25 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 14, 11:18*am, "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?


Medicare doesn't work very well for the taxpayer. We been hearing
since Nixon was in office that they are going to correct the fraud and
waste, they didn't, and they won't now.



http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...are_fraud.html


Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP, told an audience at the Center for American
Progress back in July that, unless we act, overpayments to Medicare
Advantage plans will total about $54 billion over five years. This
week, the Government Accountability Office confirmed that this is not
just waste but possibly fraud. Private insurers pocket tens of
millions of dollars every year, if not a far higher amount, in
overpayments from the federal government that legally must be used to
improve coverage for enrollees.

In 2003, 220 private insurers participated in Medicare. The Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid audited 49 of the organizations and found
significant errors at 41 of them. But Medicare did not take action to
collect the $59 million in overpayments that could have helped to
increase benefits, lower co-payments, and lower premiums.


John Galt 14-09-2009 08:45 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
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. :-)

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%.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.
Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either uninformed
or lying.

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.")"
>
>
>


Michael Coburn 14-09-2009 10:01 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:25:28 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:

> On Sep 14, 11:18*am, "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?

>
> Medicare doesn't work very well for the taxpayer. We been hearing since
> Nixon was in office that they are going to correct the fraud and waste,
> they didn't, and they won't now.
>
>
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...are_fraud.html
>
>
> Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP, told an audience at the Center for American
> Progress back in July that, unless we act, overpayments to Medicare
> Advantage plans will total about $54 billion over five years. This
> week, the Government Accountability Office confirmed that this is not
> just waste but possibly fraud. Private insurers pocket tens of millions
> of dollars every year, if not a far higher amount, in overpayments from
> the federal government that legally must be used to improve coverage for
> enrollees.
>
> In 2003, 220 private insurers participated in Medicare. The Centers for
> Medicare and Medicaid audited 49 of the organizations and found
> significant errors at 41 of them. But Medicare did not take action to
> collect the $59 million in overpayments that could have helped to
> increase benefits, lower co-payments, and lower premiums.


Yet we see this EXACT problem being addressed by the administration in
the reform package. And the Republican lying pigs have characterized it
as cuts to Grandma's health care.

Very cute and yet another lie from the Reich.

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

Michael Coburn 15-09-2009 02:16 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
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

Michael Coburn 15-09-2009 02:47 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
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

John Galt 15-09-2009 03:03 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
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.")"
>>>
>>>
>>>

>
>


Michael Coburn 15-09-2009 06:10 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
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

Lawyerkill 15-09-2009 10:20 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 14, 9:16*pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> 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.
>


Nice try, but this has nothing to do with part D.

"The Medicare actuaries then dryly note what would happen once the
trust funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance
program are depleted: "

"Medicare's hospital insurance program"

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medica...teesReport.htm




Here's this is from the report itself, the have it a little confused.


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

"The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance
(HI) Trust Fund is now 3.88 percent of taxable payroll, up from 3.54
percent projected in last year's report. The fund again fails our test
of short-range financial adequacy, as projected annual assets drop
below projected annual expenditures within 10 yearsby 2012. The fund
also continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance
by a wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is
2017, two years earlier than in last year's report, when dedicated
revenues would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of HI costs. Projected
HI dedicated revenues fall short of outlays by rapidly increasing
margins in all future years. The Medicare Report shows that the HI
Trust Fund could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75
years by changes equivalent to an immediate 134 percent increase in
the payroll tax (from a rate of 2.9 percent to 6.78 percent), or an
immediate 53 percent reduction in program outlays, or some combination
of the two. Larger changes would be required to make the program
solvent beyond the 75-year horizon."







Lawyerkill 15-09-2009 11:48 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 14, 9:16�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>
> 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.


You are a little confused, or are trying to confuse the issue. The
article was talking about Medicare's hospital insurance program, not
part 'B' and 'D'. Medicare HI is going belly up without the help of,
'B' and 'D', that's another issue. Read the report first.

>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.


SAY WHAT??????


http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshal...ts/RL32582.pdf


The Part B program is
financed through a combination of monthly premiums paid by
current enrollees and
general revenues.

When Medicare began in 1966, the Part B monthly premium paid by
beneficiaries was set at a level to finance 50% of Part B
costs; general revenues
financed the remainder. Legislation enacted in 1972 limited
annual premium
increases. As a result, beneficiary contributions dropped to
below 25% of program
costs by the early 1980s. Since the early 1980s, Congress
regularly voted to set Part
B premiums at levels to cover 25% of program costs. The
Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (BBA 97) permanently set the Part B premium at 25% of
program costs.
Certain low-income beneficiaries are entitled to assistance in
paying their Part B
premiums. Beginning in 2007, certain high income Medicare
enrollees will pay a
higher percentage of their Part B premiums.





PS I was againt the bill for 'D'. Oh and the Democratic plan for part
D was unfunded also.

Again, regardless, the article was about Medicare HI going belly up,
it was going belly up with the help of part 'D'.



John Galt 15-09-2009 01:04 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
Michael Coburn wrote:
> 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.


The usual refusal to deal with the argument --- instead, all we get is
your usual hubris.

Point stands unrefuted. EOM.

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

>
>
>
>
>


Allan[_2_] 15-09-2009 01:17 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 14, 11:51*am, 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 government writes laws that fix prices.


> 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.


The government never includes a cost of capital or opportunity cost in
their calculations of "overhead". That is deceptive because they
certainly incur those costs. Medicare Advantage is an example how the
government transfers risk for utilization. And yes, Medicare needs a
pool of money - that's where the 1.45% of your income goes if you are
still employed.

> 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,


Yes, they do (see the website for starters) and yes they do have execs
- but many of the top employees salaries are paid by the DHHS, not
Medicare.

> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
> of their benefits. *


Now that was way too funny!

>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.


And this is just plain wrong. Medicare does not process claims at all
- it is outsourced to the Blues.

>*And there is no reason for
> profit motives to exist in such a system.


It's called "cost of capital" and in the absence of normal profits
(even "non-profits make normal profits) they don't survive in the long
term.

>Every aspect of insurance on a
> scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics. *
> Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change so
> quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. *It is a VERY
> PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly


You have provided an interesting insight regarding your naivete. It
is interesting to see the similarity between that and what is
happening in Washington on the Dems side of the aisle.

allan

John Galt 15-09-2009 01:30 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
Allan wrote:
> On Sep 14, 11:51 am, 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 government writes laws that fix prices.
>
>
>> 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.

>
> The government never includes a cost of capital or opportunity cost in
> their calculations of "overhead". That is deceptive because they
> certainly incur those costs. Medicare Advantage is an example how the
> government transfers risk for utilization. And yes, Medicare needs a
> pool of money - that's where the 1.45% of your income goes if you are
> still employed.
>
>> 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,

>
> Yes, they do (see the website for starters) and yes they do have execs
> - but many of the top employees salaries are paid by the DHHS, not
> Medicare.
>
>> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
>> of their benefits.

>
> Now that was way too funny!
>
>> 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.

>
> And this is just plain wrong. Medicare does not process claims at all
> - it is outsourced to the Blues.
>
>> And there is no reason for
>> profit motives to exist in such a system.

>
> It's called "cost of capital" and in the absence of normal profits
> (even "non-profits make normal profits) they don't survive in the long
> term.
>
>> Every aspect of insurance on a
>> scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics.
>> Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change so
>> quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. It is a VERY
>> PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly

>
> You have provided an interesting insight regarding your naivete. It
> is interesting to see the similarity between that and what is
> happening in Washington on the Dems side of the aisle.
>
> allan


It's the level of "scholarship" that Coburn brings to every discussion.

JG

Bryan[_6_] 15-09-2009 02:21 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 15, 7:04*am, John Galt > wrote:
>

A bunch of crap about greed being virtuous.

Anyone who'd choose that moniker (John Galt) is trying to tell the
world just that.

Selfishness is not something to be proud of. You need to repeat
kindergarten.

--Bryan

John Galt 15-09-2009 02:54 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
Bryan wrote:
> On Sep 15, 7:04 am, John Galt > wrote:
> A bunch of crap about greed being virtuous.


Never said that. Who are you responding to?

JG


>
> Anyone who'd choose that moniker (John Galt) is trying to tell the
> world just that.
>
> Selfishness is not something to be proud of. You need to repeat
> kindergarten.
>
> --Bryan


Bryan[_6_] 15-09-2009 04:01 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 15, 8:54*am, John Galt > wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 7:04 am, John Galt > wrote:
> > A bunch of crap about greed being virtuous.

>
> Never said that. Who are you responding to?


Quote: "Profit in America is good..."

The idea that profit, in itself, is a moral good is a twisted
ideology.

I'm not a socialist. I recognize that self interest works to motivate
and spurs innovation, but the health insurance companies are
parasites. Even so, I'd like to see them slowly made irrelevant,
rather than done away with in short order as they so richly deserve,
because a sudden move to single payer would be too disruptive even in
more prosperous times.

Ownership (ownability) is a social construct, not a sacred property
inherent in anything possessible, and many things just shouldn't be in
private, for-profit hands. Health insurance has proven to be one of
them.

Profit is neither morally good nor bad, but wise or unwise, depending
on the circumstances. Ayn Rand was morally bankrupt.
>
> JG


>
> > Anyone who'd choose that moniker (John Galt) is trying to tell the
> > world just that.

>
> > Selfishness is not something to be proud of. *You need to repeat
> > kindergarten.

>
> > --Bryan


--Bryan

John Galt 15-09-2009 04:25 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
Bryan wrote:
> On Sep 15, 8:54 am, John Galt > wrote:
>> Bryan wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 7:04 am, John Galt > wrote:
>>> A bunch of crap about greed being virtuous.

>> Never said that. Who are you responding to?

>
> Quote: "Profit in America is good..."


Exactly. Never said a word about greed.
>
> The idea that profit, in itself, is a moral good is a twisted
> ideology.


Profit is the motivation by which people engage in commerce. Without
such motivation, commerce ceases, and we'll be a third world country in
a generation.

Profit is simply that -- making a buck on a transaction for goods and
services. It is a necessary component of business activity. Greed, OTOH,
is a corrupted motivation. Greed is not the attainment of excess profit,
but the DESIRE for excess profit well beyond what is needed by the
greedy person.

The two are only tangentially related. You can't say because a person
believes profit is good, they believe greed is good. Doesn't work like
that.
>
> I'm not a socialist. I recognize that self interest works to motivate
> and spurs innovation, but the health insurance companies are
> parasites. Even so, I'd like to see them slowly made irrelevant,
> rather than done away with in short order as they so richly deserve,
> because a sudden move to single payer would be too disruptive even in
> more prosperous times.


So what you actually have is not a problem with profit, OR greed, but a
problem with the business model of the insurer.

I suggest you focus in on fixing the business model so it delivers more
value to society, rather than killing what you admit is a necessary
business function (if you support single payer, you're supporting the
business function of the insurers -- you just want somebody else to run
it, and it's somebody that not many americans trust very much to do a
good job of it. )
>
> Ownership (ownability) is a social construct, not a sacred property
> inherent in anything possessible, and many things just shouldn't be in
> private, for-profit hands. Health insurance has proven to be one of
> them.


That's your opinion. I disagree. Most nations that have universal
coverage would also disagree, because most nations do not have single
payer systems. They deliver universal coverage through regulated private
insurers. The "world" is not the UK and Canada. There are many models,
and most include private insurance (even the UK does, for that matter --
anybody with a buck in their pocket buys a private insurance policy as
backup for when the NHS fails to deliver.)
>
> Profit is neither morally good nor bad, but wise or unwise, depending
> on the circumstances. Ayn Rand was morally bankrupt.


Rand took many positions. Only a priest or a philosopher has any
business passing judgement on morals, by my way of thinking.

However, what she warned about primarly was a creeping movement of
so-called morality into government, which then pontificating nonsense
about how the "society" is more important than your family and your
direct dependents.

Sorry, but if you tell me is more important to insure some bum on the
street than it is to insure my own family, you've the problem, not me
(I'd also like to be a fly on the wall when you tell that to your wife.)

JG


>> JG

>
>>> Anyone who'd choose that moniker (John Galt) is trying to tell the
>>> world just that.
>>> Selfishness is not something to be proud of. You need to repeat
>>> kindergarten.
>>> --Bryan

>
> --Bryan


Michael Coburn 15-09-2009 04:34 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:17:59 -0700, Allan wrote:

> On Sep 14, 11:51*am, 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 government writes laws that fix prices.


That is an overstatement but essentially correct in this particular
case. Government has a fiduciary responsibility to the people who fund
government activities. And in that regard government health insurance
systems must prosecute fraud and waste while acknowledging and supporting
the need for profits and wages that inure to the benefit of providers.
It is these profits and wages that assure the continued provisioning of
services. Japan has a very serious problem with this in that they set
the price of _EVERYTHING_. NO one would suggest such a system in the USA.

>> 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.

>
> The government never includes a cost of capital or opportunity cost in
> their calculations of "overhead". That is deceptive because they
> certainly incur those costs. Medicare Advantage is an example how the
> government transfers risk for utilization. And yes, Medicare needs a
> pool of money - that's where the 1.45% of your income goes if you are
> still employed.


Government is the _source_ of money since 1973. To imply that government
has to face "opportunity costs" in the same way as those who can't simply
create money is seriously delusional. Opportunity costs for government
have to do with judging what can be done without losing control of the
value of the dollar and what should be done to improve the general
welfare. The 3.9% medicare tax is the means by which Medicare "A" is
funded in an ongoing manner. It is a flow and not a stock. So the basic
point remains: Government does not need to "accumulate" money in an
account before government starts an insurance program nor does government
need to retain a pool of money in regard to such programs for any reason
other than accounting and transparency.

>> 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,

>
> Yes, they do (see the website for starters) and yes they do have execs -
> but many of the top employees salaries are paid by the DHHS, not
> Medicare.
>
>> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders
>> out of their benefits.

>
> Now that was way too funny!


As I said: They do not have the marketing overhead that is usually
associated with a private insurance company. I forget to mention the
return to scale. The website serves a lot more customers than the number
served by the typical private insurance provider.

>>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.

>
> And this is just plain wrong. Medicare does not process claims at all -
> it is outsourced to the Blues.


Irrelevant. The administrative costs PER CLAIM and PER DOLLAR are less
than the typical insurance company.

>>*And there is no reason for
>> profit motives to exist in such a system.

>
> It's called "cost of capital" and in the absence of normal profits (even
> "non-profits make normal profits) they don't survive in the long term.


As I said above: There is no "cost of capital" for a government
insurance operation. There is accountability and transparency and the
need for prosecuting waste and fraud. But there are no "capital costs".

>>Every aspect of insurance on a
>> scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics.
>> Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change
>> so quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. *It is a VERY
>> PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly

>
> You have provided an interesting insight regarding your naivete. It is
> interesting to see the similarity between that and what is happening in
> Washington on the Dems side of the aisle.
>
> allan


I have the feeling that "allan" works in the insurance "industry". More
importantly, "allan", does not understand the concept of fiat money and
the fact that government is not a business. It appears that the
"naivete" is not mine.

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

AZDuffman 15-09-2009 05:47 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 14, 10:03*pm, John Galt > wrote:
> Michael Coburn wrote:


> 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.


I can see Coburn's reply to this one:

"LIAR--THE GERMANS DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!"

John Galt 15-09-2009 06:01 PM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
AZDuffman wrote:
> On Sep 14, 10:03 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>> Michael Coburn wrote:

>
>> 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.

>
> I can see Coburn's reply to this one:
>
> "LIAR--THE GERMANS DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!"


ROTF.

JG


Michael Coburn 15-09-2009 08:15 PM

Rep Joe Wilson is full of it. Obama is a right about healthcare!
 
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:20:53 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:

> On Sep 14, 9:16*pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>

> Nice try, but this has nothing to do with part D.
>
> "The Medicare actuaries then dryly note what would happen once the trust
> funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance program are
> depleted: "
>
> "Medicare's hospital insurance program"
>
> http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-

NewTrusteesReport.htm

All of that looks to me that the new Democratic government is looking
very closely at the problem and actually doing that which others in the
past have paid lip service. This, no doubt, infuriates the rightarded.

>
> Here's this is from the report itself, the have it a little confused.
>
>
> http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
>
> "The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance (HI)
> Trust Fund is now 3.88 percent of taxable payroll, up from 3.54 percent
> projected in last year's report. The fund again fails our test of
> short-range financial adequacy, as projected annual assets drop below
> projected annual expenditures within 10 yearsby 2012. The fund also
> continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance by a
> wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2017, two
> years earlier than in last year's report, when dedicated revenues would
> be sufficient to pay 81 percent of HI costs. Projected HI dedicated
> revenues fall short of outlays by rapidly increasing margins in all
> future years. The Medicare Report shows that the HI Trust Fund could be
> brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by changes
> equivalent to an immediate 134 percent increase in the payroll tax (from
> a rate of 2.9 percent to 6.78 percent), or an immediate 53 percent
> reduction in program outlays, or some combination of the two. Larger
> changes would be required to make the program solvent beyond the 75-year
> horizon."


I have already addressed this. The Medicare tax should be assessed on
_ALL_ income and not just on _WAGE_ income, because the benefits are not
tied to wages as are Social Security benefits.

Problem resolved.

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

Lawyerkill 15-09-2009 08:32 PM

Supposed problems with Medicare
 
On Sep 15, 3:04�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:

>
> I meant "D" obviously. �Pretty hard to confuse the proposition even with
> the typo. �But you _WILL_ run with this nit as much as you can.
>
> <<<<<<<<< pig prancing nit picking deleted >>>>>>>>>>>



No, you blame everything on the Republicans and Bush and the article
was clearly talking about Medicare HI and you either confused Medicare
HI with part 'B' and 'D' or you did it just to try and confuse the
issue.

> > PS I was againt the bill for 'D'. �Oh and the Democratic plan for part D
> > was unfunded also.

>
> A tacit admission that you _KNEW_ it was a typo and could not resist the
> posturing opportunity.



No, I just waned to clear up your confusion in trying to lump
everything together.


> > Again, regardless, the article was about Medicare HI going belly up, it
> > was going belly up with the help of part 'D'.

>
> The Article said _MEDICARE_ and Social Security and gave no link to the
> "supposed" Reports that on page ^$%^ said the Martians are coming to eat
> the kids.




I guess you are talking about the first article, it clearly says
Medicare HI.


"The Medicare actuaries then dryly note what would happen once the
trust funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance
program are depleted: "


"Medicare's hospital insurance program"


You claimed it was because of part B and D and tried to blame the
problem on Bush and the Republicans. Clearly part 'B' and 'D' are
another problem.



>
>
> HOWEVER!
>
> If there is an _HONEST_ desire to address Medicare "A" (called HI) the
> cure is simple:
>
> Whereas the benefits inure equally to all regardless of the AMOUNT of
> paid in taxes, regardless of income, and regardless of assets, then the
> Medicare tax should be assessed on _ALL_ income and not just wage income.
> At the current 2.9% rate that will probably put the "A" fund in a
> position of large excess in that 75 year time frame. �And the funds
> should be OFF BUDGET.
>
> PS. We would probably need a REDUCTION in the tax rate if we were fixated
> on Medicare "A" applying the tax in a JUST manner.



And how much do we have to increase taxes?

We have too many things off budget already, putting something, "OFF
BUDGET" doesn't pay for it.

Bryan[_6_] 15-09-2009 09:40 PM

Rep Joe Wilson is full of it. Obama is a right about health care!
 
On Sep 15, 2:15*pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:20:53 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 9:16*pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> >> 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.

>
> > Nice try, but this has nothing to do with part D.

>
> > "The Medicare actuaries then dryly note what would happen once the trust
> > funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance program are
> > depleted: "

>
> > "Medicare's hospital insurance program"

>
> >http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-

>
> NewTrusteesReport.htm
>
> All of that looks to me that the new Democratic government is looking
> very closely at the problem and actually doing that which others in the
> past have paid lip service. *This, no doubt, infuriates the rightarded.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's this is from the report itself, the have it a little confused.

>
> >http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

>
> > "The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance (HI)
> > Trust Fund is now 3.88 percent of taxable payroll, up from 3.54 percent
> > projected in last year's report. The fund again fails our test of
> > short-range financial adequacy, as projected annual assets drop below
> > projected annual expenditures within 10 yearsby 2012. The fund also
> > continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance by a
> > wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2017, two
> > years earlier than in last year's report, when dedicated revenues would
> > be sufficient to pay 81 percent of HI costs. Projected HI dedicated
> > revenues fall short of outlays by rapidly increasing margins in all
> > future years. The Medicare Report shows that the HI Trust Fund could be
> > brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by changes
> > equivalent to an immediate 134 percent increase in the payroll tax (from
> > a rate of 2.9 percent to 6.78 percent), or an immediate 53 percent
> > reduction in program outlays, or some combination of the two. Larger
> > changes would be required to make the program solvent beyond the 75-year
> > horizon."

>
> I have already addressed this. *The Medicare tax should be assessed on
> _ALL_ income and not just on _WAGE_ income, because the benefits are not
> tied to wages as are Social Security benefits.
>
> Problem resolved.


And the extreme libertarian types can choose to emigrate if they don't
like it. They're already free to invest in international companies
that export jobs. Perhaps they need a "Holiday in Cambodia."
>
> --
> "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson


--Bryan

John Kuthe[_2_] 16-09-2009 12:26 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
On Sep 15, 10:01*am, Bryan > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 8:54*am, John Galt > wrote:
>
> > Bryan wrote:
> > > On Sep 15, 7:04 am, John Galt > wrote:
> > > A bunch of crap about greed being virtuous.

>
> > Never said that. Who are you responding to?

>
> Quote: "Profit in America is good..."
>
> The idea that profit, in itself, is a moral good is a twisted
> ideology.
>
> I'm not a socialist. *I recognize that self interest works to motivate
> and spurs innovation, but the health insurance companies are
> parasites. *Even so, I'd like to see them slowly made irrelevant,
> rather than done away with in short order as they so richly deserve,
> because a sudden move to single payer would be too disruptive even in
> more prosperous times.
>
> Ownership (ownability) is a social construct, not a sacred property
> inherent in anything possessible, and many things just shouldn't be in
> private, for-profit hands. *Health insurance has proven to be one of
> them.


Which is exactly why all health insurers should be NOT FOR PROFIT
corporations!!!

John Kuthe...

Les Cargill[_2_] 16-09-2009 01:06 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
Bryan wrote:
> On Sep 15, 8:54 am, John Galt > wrote:
>> Bryan wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 7:04 am, John Galt > wrote:
>>> A bunch of crap about greed being virtuous.

>> Never said that. Who are you responding to?

>
> Quote: "Profit in America is good..."
>
> The idea that profit, in itself, is a moral good is a twisted
> ideology.
>


That's rot. You don't understand the concept.

Profits mean that customers have voted for you with dollars. Insurance
is sold in a bizarro way, one that really doesn't mean the "best"
health insurer wins, but you can't throw the baby out with the
bathwater.

> I'm not a socialist. I recognize that self interest works to motivate
> and spurs innovation, but the health insurance companies are
> parasites.



They're "parasites" with 2% margins.

> Even so, I'd like to see them slowly made irrelevant,
> rather than done away with in short order as they so richly deserve,
> because a sudden move to single payer would be too disruptive even in
> more prosperous times.
>


It looks to me like there simply is *no* good solution. Remarkably,
*France*'s system looks good, but no telling how it'd graft on here.

> Ownership (ownability) is a social construct, not a sacred property
> inherent in anything possessible, and many things just shouldn't be in
> private, for-profit hands. Health insurance has proven to be one of
> them.
>


All insurance is, is a means of financing. Not defending the eixsting
order, but I really don't think insurance companies are quite
the devils you do.

> Profit is neither morally good nor bad, but wise or unwise, depending
> on the circumstances. Ayn Rand was morally bankrupt.


I can't exactly agree with that, either. Egalitarianism sounds
good, but it rarely works very well.

>> JG

>
>>> Anyone who'd choose that moniker (John Galt) is trying to tell the
>>> world just that.
>>> Selfishness is not something to be proud of. You need to repeat
>>> kindergarten.
>>> --Bryan

>
> --Bryan


--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_2_] 16-09-2009 01:07 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
John Kuthe wrote:
> On Sep 15, 10:01 am, Bryan > wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 8:54 am, John Galt > wrote:
>>
>>> Bryan wrote:
>>>> On Sep 15, 7:04 am, John Galt > wrote:
>>>> A bunch of crap about greed being virtuous.
>>> Never said that. Who are you responding to?

>> Quote: "Profit in America is good..."
>>
>> The idea that profit, in itself, is a moral good is a twisted
>> ideology.
>>
>> I'm not a socialist. I recognize that self interest works to motivate
>> and spurs innovation, but the health insurance companies are
>> parasites. Even so, I'd like to see them slowly made irrelevant,
>> rather than done away with in short order as they so richly deserve,
>> because a sudden move to single payer would be too disruptive even in
>> more prosperous times.
>>
>> Ownership (ownability) is a social construct, not a sacred property
>> inherent in anything possessible, and many things just shouldn't be in
>> private, for-profit hands. Health insurance has proven to be one of
>> them.

>
> Which is exactly why all health insurers should be NOT FOR PROFIT
> corporations!!!
>
> John Kuthe...



They run on 2% margins now... BCBS is not-for-profit....

--
Les Cargill

alexy 16-09-2009 04:38 AM

Supposed problems with Medicare
 
Michael Coburn > wrote:


>
>If there is an _HONEST_ desire to address Medicare "A" (called HI) the
>cure is simple:
>
>Whereas the benefits inure equally to all regardless of the AMOUNT of
>paid in taxes, regardless of income, and regardless of assets, then the
>Medicare tax should be assessed on _ALL_ income and not just wage income.


The benefits are not related to income, therefore the tax for them
should be related to total income? Huh?!?! IF you are going to use
this rather feeble reasoning for how the taxes should be assessed, it
would actually argue much better for a per-head tax. In fact, Congress
has already rejected that line of thinking, taxing all wage income,
not just the first dollar, or wages up to the SSWB.

>At the current 2.9% rate that will probably put the "A" fund in a
>position of large excess in that 75 year time frame.

Possibly. I wasn't able to quickly find any data on the amount of
non-wage individual taxable income. How much is it vs wage income?

>And the funds
>should be OFF BUDGET.

I agree.

>PS. We would probably need a REDUCTION in the tax rate if we were fixated
>on Medicare "A" applying the tax in a JUST manner.

Purely a value statement. Your "just" may be different from someone
else's "just". I'm sure you would strongly believe your definition to
be "right", but that doesn't make it so.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Michael Coburn 16-09-2009 08:33 AM

Supposed problems with Medicare
 
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:32:03 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:

> On Sep 15, 3:04�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>
>
>> I meant "D" obviously. �Pretty hard to confuse the proposition even
>> with the typo. �But you _WILL_ run with this nit as much as you can.
>>
>> <<<<<<<<< pig prancing nit picking deleted >>>>>>>>>>>

>
>
> No, you blame everything on the Republicans and Bush and the article was
> clearly talking about Medicare HI and you either confused Medicare HI
> with part 'B' and 'D' or you did it just to try and confuse the issue.


Let me address each part of your charge he

1. I have a deep seated hatred for latter day Republicans. But that does
not CREATE their constant failed policies and initiatives. They do.

2. The part of the article to which I responded was not "clearly" talking
about Medicare "A" because it simply used the unadorned word "Medicare"
an added Social Security to it. The clarification (Which may or may not
have been a clarification) came in the paragraph that followed and which
was not in the post to which I responded). If Republican apologists want
to talk specifically about Medicare HI then they can damned well make it
clear and not mix it with Social Security. And then you and they can use
the word "clearly".

>> > PS I was againt the bill for 'D'. �Oh and the Democratic plan for
>> > part D was unfunded also.

>>
>> A tacit admission that you _KNEW_ it was a typo and could not resist
>> the posturing opportunity.

>
>
> No, I just waned to clear up your confusion in trying to lump everything
> together.


Twas not I who lumped. The article "clearly" lumps Medicare and Social
Security.

"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.")


>> > Again, regardless, the article was about Medicare HI going belly up,
>> > it was going belly up with the help of part 'D'.

>>
>> The Article said _MEDICARE_ and Social Security and gave no link to the
>> "supposed" Reports that on page ^$%^ said the Martians are coming to
>> eat the kids.

>
>
>
> I guess you are talking about the first article, it clearly says
> Medicare HI.
>
>
> "The Medicare actuaries then dryly note what would happen once the trust
> funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance program are
> depleted: "


And even here (after the verbiage to which I responded), the article is
combining both Medicare and Social Security.

> "Medicare's hospital insurance program"
>
>
> You claimed it was because of part B and D and tried to blame the
> problem on Bush and the Republicans. Clearly part 'B' and 'D' are
> another problem.


Yes.

>>
>> HOWEVER!
>>
>> If there is an _HONEST_ desire to address Medicare "A" (called HI) the
>> cure is simple:
>>
>> Whereas the benefits inure equally to all regardless of the AMOUNT of
>> paid in taxes, regardless of income, and regardless of assets, then the
>> Medicare tax should be assessed on _ALL_ income and not just wage
>> income. At the current 2.9% rate that will probably put the "A" fund in
>> a position of large excess in that 75 year time frame. �And the funds
>> should be OFF BUDGET.
>>
>> PS. We would probably need a REDUCTION in the tax rate if we were
>> fixated on Medicare "A" applying the tax in a JUST manner.

>
>
> And how much do we have to increase taxes?


Looks like to me that taxing aggregate AGI as opposed to taxing wages
would result in a 40% increase in Medicare receipts while giving the
lower income people a small tax break. That should keep the Medicare HI
program solvent for a while without a rate increase, i.e. The rate of
2.9% is applied to AGI instead of to wages.

And the actual fear mongering concerning medicare seems to be based on
demographics. The demographics part may require an increase in the tax
rate. So be it. Taking the system OUT of government will not solve any
of the problems. And it will make the control of costs all the more
difficult. It will make matters worse.

> We have too many things off budget already, putting something, "OFF
> BUDGET" doesn't pay for it.


The purpose of "Off Budget" for social insurance systems is to "clearly"
delineate these programs as to source of revenue and actual outlays. It
keeps people from claiming that social insurance programs have ANYTHING
to do with the regular government budget or with INCOME taxes _UNLESS_
those claims are actually true (as Medicare "B" and "D"). The FICA tax
is actually a whole life insurance premium more than it is a tax. All
the pig manure about government growth while pointing to "entitlements"
is dishonest. Claims about "entitlements" being a HUGE part of the
federal budget and in the same breath yakking about taxes is misleading.
It is misleading because the word "taxes" is assumed to be INCOME taxes
by all that use the term at the Federal level. Tax cuts and tax
increases are assumed to be INCOME tax cuts and increases. Too many
people talk about the "unified" budget and such talk is too imprecise.

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

Lawyerkill 16-09-2009 11:15 AM

Supposed problems with Medicare
 
On Sep 16, 3:33�am, Michael Coburn > wrote:

> Let me address each part of your charge he
>
> 1. I have a deep seated hatred for latter day Republicans. But that does
> not CREATE their constant failed policies and initiatives. �They do.


If you mean the Republican Congress bewteen 2001 and 2007, I agree.
They wasted money and really did nothing good(Both parties were for
the wars).

Congress has the power, they control the laws and money. They have
oversight on how the other levels of government operate, they didn't
do their job. Problem is neither did the Democrats. The Democrats have
been control of the Congress for almost 3 years now and things
continue to go down hill. The first few yaers they were more concerned
about putting bills and other things up just to hurt the President and
ignored their rule of oversight, this is part of the reason we are at
this point right now.

Yes the problems are starting to slow down, but it was by way of the
biggest spending programs in our history. See how our grandkids feel
when we hand them the bill.



>
> 2. The part of the article to which I responded was not "clearly" talking
> about Medicare "A" because it simply used the unadorned word "Medicare"
> an added Social Security to it. �The clarification (Which may or may not
> have been a clarification) came in the paragraph that followed and which
> was not in the post to which I responded). �If Republican apologists want
> to talk specifically about Medicare HI then they can damned well make it
> clear and not mix it with Social Security. �And then you and they can use
> the word "clearly".



But you read the article before you posted, here's what you said

Michael Coburn
>"The Article said _MEDICARE_ and Social Security and gave no link to the
>"supposed" Reports that on page ^$%^ said the Martians are coming to eat
>the kids."


Your only excuse then was there were no links in it.

Yes, Medicare and Social Security are going belly up, so where is the
error? And the writer, under like you, didn't say Medicare is going BK
bcause of SS, or SS is going BK because of Medicare. He clearly didn't
say anything about Part 'B' and 'D because they are not the part
supported by the tax. You misread that into what he wrote, you even
accure him of insinuating that these were to be supported by Medicare
tax. He said nothing of the sort, Medicare 'A' is supported by the
tax, not "B" or "D" so it was claer what he was talking about. You are
the one that lumped in "D" AND "B". here's what you wrote

"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."

But all this doesn't matter because if you knew the subject you would
have known the reason Medicare was going BK is because of Medicare "A"
and has nothing to do with "B" and "D". Medicare is going BK long
before anything to do with "B" and "D".

>
> Twas not I who lumped. �The article "clearly" lumps Medicare and Social
> Security.


Geez, again he didn't claim Medicare is causing SS to go BK, unlike
you claiming part "D" and "B" was the reason Medicare was going BK. He
didn't link them together as one causing the other to go BK. There was
nothing incorrect on what he wrote, but what you wrote was incorrect.

> Looks like to me that taxing aggregate AGI as opposed to taxing wages
> would result in a 40% increase in Medicare receipts while giving the
> lower income people a small tax break. �That should keep the Medicare HI
> program solvent for a while without a rate increase, i.e. The rate of
> 2.9% is applied to AGI instead of to wages. �
>
> And the actual fear mongering concerning medicare seems to be based on
> demographics. �The demographics part may require an increase in the tax
> rate. So be it. �Taking the system OUT of government will not solve any
> of the problems. �And it will make the control of costs all the more
> difficult. �It will make matters worse.


You are not taxing AIG, you are taxing the people that are insured by
AIG. AIG will just pass the tax on to the insured, increasing the cost
of health care, not reducing it.

Haha, the government can't even control the program it now runs.


> The purpose of "Off Budget" for social insurance systems is to "clearly"
> delineate these programs as to source of revenue and actual outlays. It
> keeps people from claiming that social insurance programs have ANYTHING
> to do with the regular government budget or with INCOME taxes _UNLESS_
> those claims are actually true (as Medicare "B" and "D"). �The FICA tax
> is actually a whole life insurance premium more than it is a tax. �All
> the pig manure about government growth while pointing to "entitlements"
> is dishonest. �Claims about "entitlements" being a HUGE part of the
> federal budget and in the same breath yakking about taxes is misleading. �
> It is misleading because the word "taxes" is assumed to be INCOME taxes
> by all that use the term at the Federal level. �Tax cuts and tax
> increases are assumed to be INCOME tax cuts and increases. �Too many
> people talk about the "unified" budget and such talk is too imprecise.


Tell us how much money is in the SS trust fund.

Lawyerkill 16-09-2009 11:59 AM

Supposed problems with Medicare
 
On Sep 16, 3:33�am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>
> Looks like to me that taxing aggregate AGI as opposed to taxing wages
> would result in a 40% increase in Medicare receipts while giving the
> lower income people a small tax break. �That should keep the Medicare HI
> program solvent for a while without a rate increase, i.e. The rate of
> 2.9% is applied to AGI instead of to wages. �
>
> And the actual fear mongering concerning medicare seems to be based on
> demographics. �The demographics part may require an increase in the tax
> rate. So be it. �Taking the system OUT of government will not solve any
> of the problems. �And it will make the control of costs all the more
> difficult. �It will make matters worse.
>



Look a big reason why health care cost of going up is because we don't
take care of ourself, our diet and life styles. The reason many people
get sick is because of what they eat and how they live(notice the
word, 'many' and not, 'all').

You want to tax something, tax processed foods, white bread, TV
dinners, things with added sugar and corn starch, etc. Now you are
getting to the problem. Hey, maybe Obama can stop smoking(please don't
tell me how hard it is, I'm an ex smoker). Get the crap they feed our
kids out of the schools and teach them to eat right.






Draggonfodder 16-09-2009 02:28 PM

Supposed problems with Medicare
 


"Lawyerkill" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 3:33?am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>
> Looks like to me that taxing aggregate AGI as opposed to taxing wages
> would result in a 40% increase in Medicare receipts while giving the
> lower income people a small tax break. ?That should keep the Medicare HI
> program solvent for a while without a rate increase, i.e. The rate of
> 2.9% is applied to AGI instead of to wages. ?
>
> And the actual fear mongering concerning medicare seems to be based on
> demographics. ?The demographics part may require an increase in the tax
> rate. So be it. ?Taking the system OUT of government will not solve any
> of the problems. ?And it will make the control of costs all the more
> difficult. ?It will make matters worse.
>



>Look a big reason why health care cost of going up is because we don't
>take care of ourself, our diet and life styles. The reason many people
>get sick is because of what they eat and how they live(notice the
>word, 'many' and not, 'all').


>You want to tax something, tax processed foods, white bread, TV
>dinners, things with added sugar and corn starch, etc. Now you are
>getting to the problem. Hey, maybe Obama can stop smoking(please don't
>tell me how hard it is, I'm an ex smoker). Get the crap they feed our
>kids out of the schools and teach them to eat right.


I keep telling everyone that you don't quit smoking you stop. I stopped in
1973, I see everyone trying to quit and I tell them that they should just
stop smoking. They tell me how hard it is.. I tell them it is easier to
stop than to gradually quit. It is the same with food. There are entire
industries out there for weight control. None of them work as they don't
change your lifestyle. Just stop eating bad foods and guess what, your
weight adjusts. Non-profit organizations are not non profit. They just
take more and more money and spend it. If they have extra money they give
it out in bonuses (not to the little guy). Since our government does not
have to earn the money they spend, they spend all they get and more. No
problem, just raise taxes. Raise it on the rich, on big companies, on
insurance companies... The person who ends up paying the tax is the
consumer. Our congress in made up of lawyers, so they make sure the lawyers
get a big slice of the pie as congress persons will go back to being lawyers
at some point. I feel that they should have to recluse themselves from
voting on any bill that would enrich lawyers. Wallstreet is out to make
money. They do it by taking it from investors at a high price and giving it
back at a lower price. They sell a stock to you at 100 and you sell it back
at 50 and they sell it back to you at 75 and you sell it back at 50. They
are in control.

DraggonFodder
bin there done that, ain't doing it again





Lawyerkill 16-09-2009 06:58 PM

Rep Joe Wilson is full of it. Obama is a right about health care!
 
On Sep 16, 1:33�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:09:29 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> >> >http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-

>
> >> NewTrusteesReport.htm

>
> >> All of that looks to me that the new Democratic government is looking
> >> very closely at the problem and actually doing that which others in the
> >> past have paid lip service. This, no doubt, infuriates the rightarded.

>
> > Looking very closely at it? No it was just another 1000 pages bill they
> > wanted voted on with 24 hour notice, they didn't get away with it this
> > time. It was the public's outrage, and not the Democrats, that demanded
> > we take this slowly and think about it.

>


They tried to rush it to a vote before they went on vaction last
month. The public outcry stopped them. The only thing stopping them
now is that it seems no one can agree on anything. Not only can't the
Republicans agree with the Democrats, the Democrats can't agree with
the Democrats.

Some Democrats will not vote for it unless there's a public option,
some Democrats will not vote for it if there is a public option. The
latest is Baucus has a bill he wants passed, Rockefellar is agaisnt
it.

Well I have an Appellate case I'm working on right now so I'll let you
guys fight this out.

I could swear during the lower court's decision I saw a very large red
neon sign above the Judge's head flashing, "APPEAL THIS, PLEASE APPEAL
MY DECISION"

Allan[_2_] 17-09-2009 06:30 PM

Rep Joe Wilson is full of it. Obama is a right about health care!
 
On Sep 16, 10:33*am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:09:29 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> >> >http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-

>
> >> NewTrusteesReport.htm



I found some of your insights interesting Michael. I took the liberty
of selecting a few just for fun.


> They actually did take the time and think about it. *


24 hours from committee to floor vote.....and Rangel et al said they
didn't read it (or need to). Yes, they sure took the time to think
about how they were going to stuff this one through.


> We will have 3 years to get it fixed before it goes into effect. *If it
> is on the books then the lies will cease. *Where there is legitimate
> concern legislation can be amended. *Budget forecasts get more real the
> shorter the time frame.


Now that is too funny. Get on the books and then we'll fix it? What,
fix it so it is even "better"?

>I would like to know the real > costs of providing ADEQUATE health care to all. *


Whose adequate are we talking about? Yours, mine, or my money for
yours? I don't want adequate, I want Cadillac. Why? Because I've
paid for it.

> > Now if these people are going to go on a public plan where is the money
> > coming from? Medicare HI is going broke now, adding 47 million more
> > people is just going to make it go broke faster. It's like *the old
> > business joke of losing money on each individual sale, but hoping to
> > make it up on volume.



> The current battle is about whether or not government can be trusted to
> make things fair. *


There's that word again...FAIR. Fairness as defined be a
redistributionist is far different than that of an economist. I'm a
bit tired of a political interpretation of fairness.

>There is no safe
> haven other than representative government.


I don't need a Washington Daddy to watch out for my interest, thank
you very much.

>It is far easier to hold government accountable than to hold
> the insurance companies accountable. *


I can fire my insurer right now - can you fire Obama? How about Harry
or Nancy?

> Step 1 is to cut the medicare expenses without cutting the benefits. *


Impossible - mathematically impossible UNLESS there is fraud and
waste.

>Cut
> the amount being GIVEN to insurance companies (Medigap) and cut the
> amount paid for a hospital bed (specifically Medicare "A"). *


Both cut services - no question. And Medicare doesn't pay for beds,
it pays for discharges. It is the ONE thing about Medicare that
actually makes any sense at all - DRGs.

>I hope that is "slow" enough for you.


That was a real coffee spitter.

>*The most obvious problem with
> government at present is the totally corrupt Senate. *


And I would ad House and Administrative Branch
Agreed - 100%


>*And if
> Medicare "A" funds had been kept OFF BUDGET and funded by a flat tax on
> AGI at the rate of 2% then the Mecicare fund would be very fat indeed.


So it becomes a Welfare program not a health insurance program....By
the way, it is already being funded by an across the board 2.9% income
tax.....and shifting it to AGI is stealing from seniors who have
already paid into the system...

Can you say Ponzi V2.0?

allan


Michael Coburn 17-09-2009 09:37 PM

Rep Joe Wilson is full of it. Obama is a right about healthcare!
 
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:30:27 -0700, Allan wrote:

> On Sep 16, 10:33*am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:09:29 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
>> > On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>> >> >http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-

>>
>> >> NewTrusteesReport.htm

>
>
> I found some of your insights interesting Michael. I took the liberty
> of selecting a few just for fun.
>
>
>> They actually did take the time and think about it.

>
> 24 hours from committee to floor vote.....and Rangel et al said they
> didn't read it (or need to). Yes, they sure took the time to think
> about how they were going to stuff this one through.


That bill was 2 years in the making, and every representative had access
to the bill as it entered the committees and every representative that
was voting on it SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what was in it and didn't need to read
it. All that was necessary was the advice of staff that keep track of
the committee activities. That is how the system works and how it has
worked since sometime in the 19th century. Yours is just another
Republicans whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee.

>> We will have 3 years to get it fixed before it goes into effect. *If it
>> is on the books then the lies will cease. *Where there is legitimate
>> concern legislation can be amended. *Budget forecasts get more real the
>> shorter the time frame.

>
> Now that is too funny. Get on the books and then we'll fix it? What,
> fix it so it is even "better"?


Can't be helped. Only when it is on the books can we stop the
Republicans from just making shit up.

>>I would like to know the real > costs of providing ADEQUATE health care
>>to all.

>
> Whose adequate are we talking about? Yours, mine, or my money for
> yours? I don't want adequate, I want Cadillac. Why? Because I've paid
> for it.


Adequate is actually pretty well defined in HR 3200. And go ahead. You
can have all the Cadillac you want. Nothing stopping you in this
reform. Nothing at all. You can spend as much on health care as you
want.

>> > Now if these people are going to go on a public plan where is the
>> > money coming from? Medicare HI is going broke now, adding 47 million
>> > more people is just going to make it go broke faster. It's like *the
>> > old business joke of losing money on each individual sale, but hoping
>> > to make it up on volume.

>
>
>> The current battle is about whether or not government can be trusted to
>> make things fair.

>
> There's that word again...FAIR. Fairness as defined be a
> redistributionist is far different than that of an economist. I'm a bit
> tired of a political interpretation of fairness.


Why would I care about _YOUR_ particular definition of "fair". I don't
even care about _MY_ particular definition. I care about the informed
and reasoned majority definition of "fair".

> >There is no safe
>> haven other than representative government.

>
> I don't need a Washington Daddy to watch out for my interest, thank you
> very much.


Scuse me, Daniel Boone. You fight any grizzles lately? How you doin' in
your relationship with big oil?

>>It is far easier to hold government accountable than to hold
>> the insurance companies accountable.

>
> I can fire my insurer right now - can you fire Obama? How about Harry
> or Nancy?


I have no need to fire them but your switching from one health insurance
rip off artist to another is like your particular definition of "fair".
The joint definition of "fair" says that the choice between one worthless
overhead or another is not "fair". The need is not to rid ourselves of a
particular thief so as to deal with another. The need is to rid
ourselves of thieves in general.

>> Step 1 is to cut the medicare expenses without cutting the benefits.

>
> Impossible - mathematically impossible UNLESS there is fraud and waste.


And this is what separates the economist from the accountant; the social
welfare specialist from the bean counter. And No, Republican moron,
social welfare is not a handout to the bums. It is the per capita
welfare among all groups, i.e. the benefit to the society as a whole.
Although there may be a reduction of fraud and waste in the delivery of
services, the most immediate result is cost shifting as discussed below.

>>Cut
>> the amount being GIVEN to insurance companies (Medigap) and cut the
>> amount paid for a hospital bed (specifically Medicare "A").

>
> Both cut services - no question.


Nope. You REEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLY need to study up on elasticity.

> And Medicare doesn't pay for beds, it
> pays for discharges. It is the ONE thing about Medicare that actually
> makes any sense at all - DRGs.


Irrelevant and stupid nit picking. The number of users for the service is
not going to expand to allow the hospitals to suddenly get some new
customers to fill empty beds denied to the coots. The "demand" for
hospital beds is not going to change. The Medicare system pays for
services and the providers cannot just change to serve some non existent
other users of those services. Meanwhile the providers have a sunk
investment in facilities and equipment and supplies and last, but not
least, in competent employees. So what _WILL_ happen and _HAS_ happened
in every case ever observed is that the providers will simply charge more
for services to non-Medicare customers, i.e. They will over-bill the
private insurance companies and thus shift the costs.

NET RESULT = Granny is still served.

There may actually be some cut in fraud and abuse unless you count the
cost shifting as fraud. But most of the burden of Medicare cuts will end
up being shouldered by unsuspecting purchasers of private insurance.
They can change companies as much as they want and they will still
swallow the costs. The insurance companies must compete and the providers
may or may not choose to do business with any particular provider. The
providers will do business with the companies that pay up and only they
will survive.

>>I hope that is "slow" enough for you.

>
> That was a real coffee spitter.
>
>>*The most obvious problem with
>> government at present is the totally corrupt Senate.

>
> And I would ad House and Administrative Branch Agreed - 100%


The corruption of the Senate is much more obvious than the House. And if
the corruption of the Senate could be dramatically reduced then the
corruption of the House would also abate. The money dries up.

>>*And if
>> Medicare "A" funds had been kept OFF BUDGET and funded by a flat tax on
>> AGI at the rate of 2% then the Mecicare fund would be very fat indeed.

>
> So it becomes a Welfare program not a health insurance program....


LIE! All pay the same percentage of income and receive equal benefits.

> By the
> way, it is already being funded by an across the board 2.9% income
> tax.....


LIE! (the tax is only on wages)

>and shifting it to AGI is stealing from seniors who have already
> paid into the system...


LIE!

I am a senior and my AGI is a pittance. The tax bite for most seniors
would be less than $300 a year. If this "saves Medicare" then I would be
an idiot to not pay it. Seniors currently pay Medicare premiums as it
is. You want to pay those with a tax on wages too?

Medicare taxes are only paid on wages while Medicare benefits are NOT
BASED ON AMOUNT OF WAGES OR MEDICARE TAXES PAID IN. ALL BENEFITS ARE
EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED REGARDLESS OF TAXES PAID IN AND REGARDLESS OF
FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

> Can you say Ponzi V2.0?


Can you say "lying sack of shit"?

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

Mumia W. 18-09-2009 12:22 PM

Rep Joe Wilson is full of it. Obama is a right about health care!
 
On 09/17/2009 03:37 PM, Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:30:27 -0700, Allan wrote:
>
>> On Sep 16, 10:33 am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:09:29 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
>>>> On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>>>>>> http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-
>>>>> NewTrusteesReport.htm

>>
>> I found some of your insights interesting Michael. I took the liberty
>> of selecting a few just for fun.
>>
>>
>>> They actually did take the time and think about it.

>> 24 hours from committee to floor vote.....and Rangel et al said they
>> didn't read it (or need to). Yes, they sure took the time to think
>> about how they were going to stuff this one through.

>
> That bill was 2 years in the making, and every representative had access
> to the bill as it entered the committees and every representative that
> was voting on it SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what was in it and didn't need to read
> it. All that was necessary was the advice of staff that keep track of
> the committee activities. That is how the system works and how it has
> worked since sometime in the 19th century. Yours is just another
> Republicans whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee.
>
>>> We will have 3 years to get it fixed before it goes into effect. If it
>>> is on the books then the lies will cease. Where there is legitimate
>>> concern legislation can be amended. Budget forecasts get more real the
>>> shorter the time frame.

>> Now that is too funny. Get on the books and then we'll fix it? What,
>> fix it so it is even "better"?

>
> Can't be helped. Only when it is on the books can we stop the
> Republicans from just making shit up.
>


They can continue to make stuff up even after it's on the books.
Remember the Social Security privatization debate? Anyway, it's true
that it's necessary to know what the bill does before voting on it or
supporting it.

>>> I would like to know the real > costs of providing ADEQUATE health care
>>> to all.

>> Whose adequate are we talking about? Yours, mine, or my money for
>> yours? I don't want adequate, I want Cadillac. Why? Because I've paid
>> for it.

>
> Adequate is actually pretty well defined in HR 3200. And go ahead. You
> can have all the Cadillac you want. Nothing stopping you in this
> reform. Nothing at all. You can spend as much on health care as you
> want.
>
>>>> Now if these people are going to go on a public plan where is the
>>>> money coming from? Medicare HI is going broke now, adding 47 million
>>>> more people is just going to make it go broke faster. It's like the
>>>> old business joke of losing money on each individual sale, but hoping
>>>> to make it up on volume.

>>
>>> The current battle is about whether or not government can be trusted to
>>> make things fair.

>> There's that word again...FAIR. Fairness as defined be a
>> redistributionist is far different than that of an economist. I'm a bit
>> tired of a political interpretation of fairness.

>
> Why would I care about _YOUR_ particular definition of "fair". I don't
> even care about _MY_ particular definition. I care about the informed
> and reasoned majority definition of "fair".
>
>> >There is no safe
>>> haven other than representative government.

>> I don't need a Washington Daddy to watch out for my interest, thank you
>> very much.

>
> Scuse me, Daniel Boone. You fight any grizzles lately? How you doin' in
> your relationship with big oil?
>
>>> It is far easier to hold government accountable than to hold
>>> the insurance companies accountable.

>> I can fire my insurer right now - can you fire Obama? How about Harry
>> or Nancy?

>
> I have no need to fire them but your switching from one health insurance
> rip off artist to another is like your particular definition of "fair".
> The joint definition of "fair" says that the choice between one worthless
> overhead or another is not "fair". The need is not to rid ourselves of a
> particular thief so as to deal with another. The need is to rid
> ourselves of thieves in general.
>


Agreed. Regulating private insurance should be sufficient though.

>>> Step 1 is to cut the medicare expenses without cutting the benefits.

>> Impossible - mathematically impossible UNLESS there is fraud and waste.

>
> And this is what separates the economist from the accountant; the social
> welfare specialist from the bean counter. And No, Republican moron,
> social welfare is not a handout to the bums. It is the per capita
> welfare among all groups, i.e. the benefit to the society as a whole.
> Although there may be a reduction of fraud and waste in the delivery of
> services, the most immediate result is cost shifting as discussed below.
>
>>> Cut
>>> the amount being GIVEN to insurance companies (Medigap) and cut the
>>> amount paid for a hospital bed (specifically Medicare "A").

>> Both cut services - no question.

>
> Nope. You REEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLY need to study up on elasticity.
>
>> And Medicare doesn't pay for beds, it
>> pays for discharges. It is the ONE thing about Medicare that actually
>> makes any sense at all - DRGs.

>
> Irrelevant and stupid nit picking. The number of users for the service is
> not going to expand to allow the hospitals to suddenly get some new
> customers to fill empty beds denied to the coots. The "demand" for
> hospital beds is not going to change. The Medicare system pays for
> services and the providers cannot just change to serve some non existent
> other users of those services. Meanwhile the providers have a sunk
> investment in facilities and equipment and supplies and last, but not
> least, in competent employees. So what _WILL_ happen and _HAS_ happened
> in every case ever observed is that the providers will simply charge more
> for services to non-Medicare customers, i.e. They will over-bill the
> private insurance companies and thus shift the costs.
>
> NET RESULT = Granny is still served.
>
> There may actually be some cut in fraud and abuse unless you count the
> cost shifting as fraud. But most of the burden of Medicare cuts will end
> up being shouldered by unsuspecting purchasers of private insurance.
> They can change companies as much as they want and they will still
> swallow the costs. The insurance companies must compete and the providers
> may or may not choose to do business with any particular provider. The
> providers will do business with the companies that pay up and only they
> will survive.
>
>>> I hope that is "slow" enough for you.

>> That was a real coffee spitter.
>>
>>> The most obvious problem with
>>> government at present is the totally corrupt Senate.

>> And I would ad House and Administrative Branch Agreed - 100%

>
> The corruption of the Senate is much more obvious than the House. And if
> the corruption of the Senate could be dramatically reduced then the
> corruption of the House would also abate. The money dries up.
>
>>> And if
>>> Medicare "A" funds had been kept OFF BUDGET and funded by a flat tax on
>>> AGI at the rate of 2% then the Mecicare fund would be very fat indeed.

>> So it becomes a Welfare program not a health insurance program....

>
> LIE! All pay the same percentage of income and receive equal benefits.
>
>> By the
>> way, it is already being funded by an across the board 2.9% income
>> tax.....

>
> LIE! (the tax is only on wages)
>
>> and shifting it to AGI is stealing from seniors who have already
>> paid into the system...

>
> LIE!
>
> I am a senior and my AGI is a pittance. The tax bite for most seniors
> would be less than $300 a year. If this "saves Medicare" then I would be
> an idiot to not pay it. Seniors currently pay Medicare premiums as it
> is. You want to pay those with a tax on wages too?
>
> Medicare taxes are only paid on wages while Medicare benefits are NOT
> BASED ON AMOUNT OF WAGES OR MEDICARE TAXES PAID IN. ALL BENEFITS ARE
> EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED REGARDLESS OF TAXES PAID IN AND REGARDLESS OF
> FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
>
>> Can you say Ponzi V2.0?

>
> Can you say "lying sack of shit"?
>



Sure,Not 08-10-2009 12:03 AM

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies from Forbes :: Rep Joe Wilsonwas correct, Obama is a liar about health care!
 
> 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.
>


Hogwash.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter