"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1J8Xj.130787$fB7.87955@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Titix" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:DI7Xj.3482$7k7.1792@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:fd5Xj.101270$ea6.30131@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> "Titix" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> news:IW%Wj.3203$ah4.2359@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> > "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> > news:jH_Wj.131801$Tj3.117922@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>
> >> >> "Titix" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> news:Z2ZWj.1926$r82.390@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Dionysus" <no surrender@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:mfOdnTLnC6uKuLHVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> COMMENTARY FROM DETROIT NEWS
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> HEAD: GM gets tougher; will UAW cry 'uncle'?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > The Detroit automaker canceled medical and life insurance
benefits
> > for
> >> >> > workers striking the Delta Town****p factory outside Lansing,
> > something
> >> > the
> >> >> > company hasn't done in a decade.
> >> >> > -------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > Another reason to have one payer system health care.
> >> >> > It's comingggg...
> >> >>
> >> >> There are no candidates suggesting a one payer system.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, if it's "cominggggg....." it's not "cominggggg......" until at
> > least
> >> >> after 2016, assuming the next president holds two terms.
> >> >>
> >> >> JG
> >> >>
> >> > The next president will sign it if the Democratic Congress with big
> >> > majority pass it. The wind has started to blow in the different
> > direction,
> >> > John, things will be done
> >>
> >> Then he/she is a one term president, and the "big majority" doesn't
last
> >> past 2012.
> >>
> >> However, if you wish to try and convince me that the largest voting
bloc
> > in
> >> history, the Boomers, who will soon be the largest consumers of
health
> > care
> >> ever, and who are noteable for their navel-gazing fixation on their
own
> >> personal convenience, are going to vote to end Medicare (which has to
> > happen
> >> under any "single payer" reform), and accept something less friendly
to
> > use
> >> (necessary for cost issues) be my guest.
> >>
> >> But, I suspect you haven't really given the demographics of the
matter
> >> all
> >> that much thought.
> >
> > Aren't you confusing baby boomers with the small block of right winger
> > boomers?
>
> No.
>
> > Most boomers I know are liberals.
>
> Most I know are conservative, but it doesn't matter.
>
> In the early 80's, at the end of a previous cycle of high health care
cost
> inflation, the managed care concept was innovated by the insurers as a
way
> to hold down costs. I remember being able to transfer from my
traditional
> 80/20 plan to the HMO. Saved about 80% on monthly premiums, IIRC, plus
> instead of the annoyance of having to come out-of-pocket until the
> deductable was reached, I just had to lay down a $10 copay. It was
great.
>
> Then, the "I wanna do it my way" boomers (of which I am one, so I
> sympathize) started to whine. You had to see the gatekeeper first. The
> gatekeeper was the reason why the HMO worked. States started to pass
> legislation (Patient "Bills of Rights") parts of which were reasonable,
but
> much of which were just to appease headstrong constituents who wanted
the
> savings of the HMO but the on-demand aspect of the 80/20. Not
surprsingly,
> the cost of the HMOs started to rise until today, they don't provide
much
in
> the way of savings between themselves and the traditional plans.
>
Which brings us back again to the motif. Profit!!!
> The lesson is that Americans are addicted to having their health care
> on-demand and "free", to the extent that as long as they're paying their
> premiums, they don't have to worry about further cost. The only way to
> control costs in that scenario is to (1) compromise on quality, (2) move
to
> a rigid gatekeeper model, or (3) ration end of life care. I don't see
any
> majority of boomers, conservative or liberal, willing to allow quality
to
> decrease, the gatekeeper model has already been rejected, and nobody's
going
> to tell the doctor they don't want that last round of chemo for their
> mothers.
But if we eliminate the profit, there would be more money to take care of
treating.
>
> In short, all the cost control measures that you see being used in
public
> plans worldwide have already been tried here and have been rejected.
Quality
> cannot be compromised, and emotion precludes any thought of rationed
care
at
> the end of life. You can have a Democratic president and 100%
Democratic
> legislators for all I care -- the details of whatever they come up with
will
> be unpopular enough to get them booted from office, OR it will be so
> expensive as to have overall negative economic impact.
>
We are the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have
health
care for
all its citizens.
>
> I don't think it would have
> > to be the end of Medicare. On the contrary, every body would be on
> > Medicare.
>
> Medicare is broke. The fiscal imbalance of Medicare is 60-70 TRILLION
> dollars, with the red ink starting between 2014 and 2017. That figure
was
> first calculated by Alice Rivlin when she was running the CBO for
Clinton,
> was verified by the Gokhale and Smetters re****t commissioned by Paul
> O'Neill, and was/is repeated by Greenspan/Bernanke quarterly in when the
Fed
> Chair re****ts to Congress. It is not sustainable going forward, because
> neither Medicare nor any sort of single payer system you can imagine can
> implement any of the cost control measures outlined above.
>
The controls that are not enforced, like doctors and hospitals billing for
services
that were not rendered, and in some instances for patient that was never
treated.
I still remember a case in S.D. of a doctor billing Medicare for patient
he
never
treated, illegals using Medicare etc. are the contributing factor for its
insolvency.
> In 20 years, the component of the debt attributable to "republicans"
that
> the liberals love to hang around the necks of Reagan and Bush will be a
fly
> on an elephant's arse compared to the component attributable to
Medicare.
> Further, the USA is broke, too. You perhaps don't mind saddling your
> grandkids with the cost of a single payer plan. I do. One cannot
reasonably
> critcize the current president for spending money we don't have while at
the
> same time planning to spend far more money we don't have on a health
care
> system.
>
You have this administration and the Republican Congress to blame for the
debt
of the nation. Giving tax brakes to the very rich and cor****ations in time
of war
was unheard of until now. This while we're spending 12 Billion per month
in
Iraq.
We're far richer than most nations and we're the only one without health
care for
all our people.
> >
> > I have yet to hear anybody explain why a for profit health care, or
> > anything
> > for
> > that matter, is cheaper than not for profit.
>
> Please. Econ 101. Read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Short
> read, fast, take you less than a day.
>
> Human beings (priests and nuns excepted, I suppose) operate from a
position
> of "what's in it for me?". People whose wage is tied to productivity
work
> harder, faster, and more efficiently than people whose wage is
independent
> from production. That's why salespeople always work on commission.
Further,
> the private business owner undertstands that revenues flowing into the
> company are finite, hard to come by, must be used efficiently in the
pursuit
> of more revenues. So you manage your organization lean and you stay
lean,
> because expenses must be ultimately subtracted from revenues to get
profit.
>
I agree. That's why I said for profit can not be as cheap as not for
profit.
People don't go in business to just brake even, they need PROFIT.
> In the public sector, neither motivation is present. Wages are not tied
to
> productivity -- you're going to get paid whether you're heads down doing
> your job or discussing baseball at the water cooler. So, the public
> organization needs more workers than the private to generate the same
work
> output. Further, there is no revenue pressure --- your "revenues" in the
> public sector are budgeted to you from taxation. If the private business
> owner is short on revenue, he/she puts initatives in place to decrease
> expenses (productivity) or increase revenues. If the public manager is
short
> on revenue, he simply budgets more money for the following year.
Not so. You have rules and bosses in public sector too.
>
> At the end of the day, the lean, productive, private organization
outputs
> more value EVEN AFTER profit is realized.
>
> There is an exception to the rule. Computerization. Computers don't care
> about profit and they work just as hard for public owners as they do for
> private. If a particular service can be delivered PRIMARY by data
> processing, the public organization has the potential of doing a more
> efficient job since they don't have to realize profit.
>
> But, if people are involved, the private organization will always
outproduce
> the public, even after profit.
That is your opion. Health care is something different
from all other business. This is a business that no one should have to
depend on
a secretary some hundreds of miles away to approve a procedure a doctor
wants
or to find out if the condition is covered.
>
> JG
>
>
|
