So Proud

[XfireZ51]

Originally Posted by efnfast

Thank you Dom, but I would rather the government had nothing to do with my medical decisions.

How do you differentiate this from someone at a FOR PROFIT Insurance company making those decisions? Do you consider those decisions to be in your best interest? When u turn 66, will be using Medicare?
Seriously, what do you base your objection on? I would like to understand the rationale for this.

[DRM500RUBYZR-1]

Originally Posted by XfireZ51

How do you differentiate this from someone at a FOR PROFIT Insurance company making those decisions? Do you consider those decisions to be in your best interest? When u turn 66, will be using Medicare?
Seriously, what do you base your objection on? I would like to understand the rationale for this.

Yes, you have a point there.


Private companies find ways to work within the money they collect.


The government simply spends like there is no tomorrow, for lesser quantity and quality than you would have received from the "for-profit" insurance company, then hands you and I the bill for their excess cost and ineptness.


Oh, and they usually eventually contract it out to the same for-profit company once they have mucked it all up.


Sounds like a winner to me!


Marty

[XfireZ51]

Originally Posted by DRM500RUBYZR-1

Yes, you have a point there.


Private companies find ways to work within the money they collect.


The government simply spends like there is no tomorrow, for lesser quantity and quality than you would have received from the "for-profit" insurance company, then hands you and I the bill for their excess cost and ineptness.


Oh, and they usually eventually contract it out to the same for-profit company once they have mucked it all up.


Sounds like a winner to me!


Marty

Administrative "costs" for "for profit" health insurance companies is ~15%. For Medicare its 3%. More of your money goes to paying healthcare bills and not shareholders, bondholders, the CEO and all the marketing expenses.
Healthcare is a right. Its a necessity for living in a society, like air, water, and these days of course electricity and the internet. I am not interested in having the government make smartphones, corn flakes, or automobiles.
There's many places where for profit is completely appropriate. And I support that. However, making money off of whether someone lives or dies isn't one of them.

[DRM500RUBYZR-1]

Originally Posted by XfireZ51

Administrative "costs" for "for profit" health insurance companies is ~15%. For Medicare its 3%. More of your money goes to paying healthcare bills and not shareholders, bondholders, the CEO and all the marketing expenses.
Healthcare is a right. Its a necessity for living in a society, like air, water, and these days of course electricity and the internet. I am not interested in having the government make smartphones, corn flakes, or automobiles.
There's many places where for profit is completely appropriate. And I support that. However, making money off of whether someone lives or dies isn't one of them.

The workers that staff medicare are not "free". We pay for them.
You presume the government operation to be less costly than private sector services.
I do not share that view.

Right? what right?

I pay for my private healthcare insurance.
I have paid into medicare my entire working life, and have, with employer help, paid for private healthcare my entire working life. It's no right, I earned and paid for it.
Same with Social Security.
I pay for my water, my electricity, my internet, my Registry membership and all of MY necessity's.
The government doesn't have money of their own, they get it from you and me.
So I pay for me, then must pay for the others too?
Why don't they pay?
This is fair?
I have the right to work to earn money to pay for what I need.
I have earned money by working since I was 11.
That is one right that we all do have.
I love when others attempt to determine what my "fair share" needs to be, or they assert it is not enough, so that others may pay nothing at all.

And all of those shareholders, bondholders, and corporations?
Guess what?
All taxed!
( and doubly so, i.e. personal and corporate!)
Without private sector employment and taxes, the government would have precious little to spend, on keeping us safe with critically needed defense spending, building common infrastructure etc.
Taxes and charity are two distinct things.
They should not be confused.

Marty

[XfireZ51]

You may not share the view of the overhead in private v gov't healthcare providers, but those are the facts. It stands to reason that the government need not incur costs associated w marketing, CEO pay and bonuses, and demonstrating continuing increase in profit margins to the shareholders while also increasing "shareholder value". Then there are the dividends paid. These are not bad things, they just don't belong in an area that deals w the health and welfare of the citizens of the country.
And no one is suggesting this is "free". We pay into Medicare. Expansion would allow people to buy into Medicare at a younger age. This would improve the overall viability of Medicare while giving more citizens access to less expensive healthcare coverage.
For the "conservatives" in the crowd, you should love this.
It provides portability for health insurance by unburdening the employer from paying for it. If individuals are no longer beholden to their employers for health insurance, it would encourage entrepreneurship with people now able to start their own business without the fear of exposure to potential costs of catastrophic illness.