Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst ... 192425262728293031323334 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 726
  1. #561  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And just in case you feel tempted, the growth in premiums has been astronomical even before the presidential election. You can try and blame premium increases on Obama, but you'd be wrong. Try blaming the current health care non-system.
    No doubt health insurance premiums have been increasing over the years, because the services and products that are needing to be reimbursed continue to rise. This is where people lose me on this whole thing about insurance premiums going up in the past. Davidra, will you not agree that there are more pills available today then say 10 or 20 years ago? Will you not agree that there are more procedures available today then say 10 or 20 years ago? Will you not agree that doctors do more procedures than they had to do 10 or 20 years ago? If costs that providers charge rise at a high rate, does it not make sense that premiums must also increase? How can the cost of medical care (not premiums, medical CARE) increase without an increase in premiums? Remember, the insurance companies aren't submitting the bills....the providers submit the bills. The insurance companies just pass the premiums through back to the providers. If bills from providers keep going up, guess what? Premiums to PAY for these increased costs must go up. Do they have overhead? Of course! Do they make a 3-4% profit margin? Of course! But if you take out the profit, I doubt you would see much of a change in premiums as long as medical COSTS continue to rise at the rate they have. I'm not really sure what was passed that is going to go after rising MEDICAL COSTS. Good grief.

    As for recent renewals of groups, 2.5% to 4% of a group's renewal is based upon the new mandates. So, a group I had that renewed recently at 9.9% (ok, we'll call that 10%) would have had a renewal of about 6% to 7% if not for the mandates. So yes, the recent mandates have hit current group renewals. Only time will tell as to how much more it will hit rates as the insurance companies start to deal with the recent mandates. Again davidra, when you are required to cover more, you must charge more. This really isn't rocket science here.

    By the way....has anyone noticed how much College costs are rising each year? Colleges here in SC have been increasing tuition at double digit rates. I guess we need to pass college cost reform, huh?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2.    #562  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    No doubt health insurance premiums have been increasing over the years, because the services and products that are needing to be reimbursed continue to rise. This is where people lose me on this whole thing about insurance premiums going up in the past. Davidra, will you not agree that there are more pills available today then say 10 or 20 years ago? Will you not agree that there are more procedures available today then say 10 or 20 years ago? Will you not agree that doctors do more procedures than they had to do 10 or 20 years ago? If costs that providers charge rise at a high rate, does it not make sense that premiums must also increase? How can the cost of medical care (not premiums, medical CARE) increase without an increase in premiums? Remember, the insurance companies aren't submitting the bills....the providers submit the bills. The insurance companies just pass the premiums through back to the providers. If bills from providers keep going up, guess what? Premiums to PAY for these increased costs must go up. Do they have overhead? Of course! Do they make a 3-4% profit margin? Of course! But if you take out the profit, I doubt you would see much of a change in premiums as long as medical COSTS continue to rise at the rate they have. I'm not really sure what was passed that is going to go after rising MEDICAL COSTS. Good grief.

    As for recent renewals of groups, 2.5% to 4% of a group's renewal is based upon the new mandates. So, a group I had that renewed recently at 9.9% (ok, we'll call that 10%) would have had a renewal of about 6% to 7% if not for the mandates. So yes, the recent mandates have hit current group renewals. Only time will tell as to how much more it will hit rates as the insurance companies start to deal with the recent mandates. Again davidra, when you are required to cover more, you must charge more. This really isn't rocket science here.

    By the way....has anyone noticed how much College costs are rising each year? Colleges here in SC have been increasing tuition at double digit rates. I guess we need to pass college cost reform, huh?

    I wouldn't dispute a thing you say, but seeing as you didn't determine that renewal rate, you really have no idea what it based on, do you? What you are saying is what you have been told by the companies, correct? And going by what happened in California with Anthem, it's clear that companies are raising their premiums based on no particular evidence that they need to. Right?
  3.    #563  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    No doubt health insurance premiums have been increasing over the years, because the services and products that are needing to be reimbursed continue to rise. This is where people lose me on this whole thing about insurance premiums going up in the past. Davidra, will you not agree that there are more pills available today then say 10 or 20 years ago? Will you not agree that there are more procedures available today then say 10 or 20 years ago? Will you not agree that doctors do more procedures than they had to do 10 or 20 years ago? If costs that providers charge rise at a high rate, does it not make sense that premiums must also increase? How can the cost of medical care (not premiums, medical CARE) increase without an increase in premiums? Remember, the insurance companies aren't submitting the bills....the providers submit the bills. The insurance companies just pass the premiums through back to the providers. If bills from providers keep going up, guess what? Premiums to PAY for these increased costs must go up. Do they have overhead? Of course! Do they make a 3-4% profit margin? Of course! But if you take out the profit, I doubt you would see much of a change in premiums as long as medical COSTS continue to rise at the rate they have. I'm not really sure what was passed that is going to go after rising MEDICAL COSTS. Good grief.

    As for recent renewals of groups, 2.5% to 4% of a group's renewal is based upon the new mandates. So, a group I had that renewed recently at 9.9% (ok, we'll call that 10%) would have had a renewal of about 6% to 7% if not for the mandates. So yes, the recent mandates have hit current group renewals. Only time will tell as to how much more it will hit rates as the insurance companies start to deal with the recent mandates. Again davidra, when you are required to cover more, you must charge more. This really isn't rocket science here.

    By the way....has anyone noticed how much College costs are rising each year? Colleges here in SC have been increasing tuition at double digit rates. I guess we need to pass college cost reform, huh?
    And this. Please note this was BEFORE health care reform, when it wasn't even known what it would entail. A bit higher than your 9%, wouldn't you say?


    Keying off the Obama administration's recent probe into a planned 39 percent rate hike from Anthem Blue Cross in California, Sebelius will detail large increases in six other states and say that given record insurer profits, health care reform has never been more urgent.
    At 11:30 a.m. today, Sebelius will release the report, obtained by TPMDC and titled "Insurance Companies Prosper, Families Suffer: Our Broken Health Insurance System."
    It finds that Anthem's rate increase (now delayed until May) is "not unique" and that experts say premiums will keep rising.
    The report quotes National Association of Insurance Commissioners officials predicting the nation will "see rate increases of 20, 25, 30 percent."
    "These massive increases are disturbing examples of the problems that make reforming our health insurance system more important than ever," the report states.
    Among its specific findings:
    Anthem of Connecticut requested an increase of 24 percent last year, which was rejected by the state. Anthem in Maine had an 18.5-percent premium increase rejected by the state last year as being "excessive and unfairly discriminatory" - but is now requesting a 23-percent increase this year.
    In 2009, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan requested approval for premium increases of 56 percent for plans sold on the individual market.
    Regency Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon requested a 20-percent premium increase.
    UnitedHealth, Tufts, and Blue Cross requested 13- to 16-percent rate increases in Rhode Island.
    And rates for some individual health plans in Washington increased by up to 40 percent until Washington State imposed stiffer premium regulations.
    The report finds that "[w]hile rising health care costs is a known problem with our broken health care system, some of the premium increases requested by insurance companies are 5 to 10 times larger than the growth rate in national health expenditures."
    It also seizes on an issue the administration has been pushing in recent weeks, saying that while prices went up, so did profits and CEO pay.
    "[P]rofits for the ten largest insurance companies increased 250 percent between 2000 and 2009, ten times faster than inflation," the report finds.

    But no, these premium increases are Obama's fault. Right.
  4. #564  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I wouldn't dispute a thing you say, but seeing as you didn't determine that renewal rate, you really have no idea what it based on, do you? What you are saying is what you have been told by the companies, correct? And going by what happened in California with Anthem, it's clear that companies are raising their premiums based on no particular evidence that they need to. Right?
    You just have no confidence in me do you? You simply think I have no idea about health insurance. I know you have no confidence in evil insurance companies. Anyway, this group was Grandfathered which means they didn't have to add the 100% preventive with no co-pay coverage. I know what the rate would have been with and without that benefit. So, I know what the rate would have been (therefore the % change) with and without this benefit (the ER elected to go with this benefit though they weren't required to). The no max benefit is negligible because they went from a $5 mill max to unlimited. I've never had anyone come close to $5 mill so this isn't really costing insurance companies that much. So, with that said, I can say with pretty good confidence about the range I mentioned. The range is there because some group plans were already "unlimited" and some plans did not have very strong preventive benefits (in many cases you could get that improved by paying a higher premium). The covering dependents under age 26 is possibly a wash because some healthy dependents will stay on (depending on whether someone could get an individual plan for less) while some would be staying on because of health issues and/or being unemployed. Time will tell how that will affect insurance companies. Again devidra, it isn't rocket science. I know you must challenge everything that comes from insurance companies, but at least you acknowledge the rest of my post regarding costs.

    As for BC/BS of CA and the other companies, I can't say they were or were not warranted. You apparently agree that health costs (again, COSTS for procedures and services and medications) continue to increase at a high rate. As far as I know, insurance companies don't have the ability to set these rates other than through negotiations with the various providers. I can't speak for these insurance carriers (or really, any for that matter), but here in SC I have not been told by any carrier that the mandates are for any more than 4%. And yes, I have had groups renew for more than a 10% increase. By the way, a different story on the individual side. What we are seeing is that insurance companies are even tighter in underwriting as they prepare (yes, businesses, unlike government, has to prepare for future issues) for higher claims now for children as well as in 2014 for adults. And rates for individual policies are being raised to deal with the inflow of unhealthy children. Again, more outflows means the need for higher inflows. Not rocket science.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. #565  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    But no, these premium increases are Obama's fault. Right.
    Well....obama and the liberals that voted for PPACA!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  6.    #566  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    You just have no confidence in me do you? You simply think I have no idea about health insurance. I know you have no confidence in evil insurance companies. Anyway, this group was Grandfathered which means they didn't have to add the 100% preventive with no co-pay coverage. I know what the rate would have been with and without that benefit. So, I know what the rate would have been (therefore the % change) with and without this benefit (the ER elected to go with this benefit though they weren't required to). The no max benefit is negligible because they went from a $5 mill max to unlimited. I've never had anyone come close to $5 mill so this isn't really costing insurance companies that much. So, with that said, I can say with pretty good confidence about the range I mentioned. The range is there because some group plans were already "unlimited" and some plans did not have very strong preventive benefits (in many cases you could get that improved by paying a higher premium). The covering dependents under age 26 is possibly a wash because some healthy dependents will stay on (depending on whether someone could get an individual plan for less) while some would be staying on because of health issues and/or being unemployed. Time will tell how that will affect insurance companies. Again devidra, it isn't rocket science. I know you must challenge everything that comes from insurance companies, but at least you acknowledge the rest of my post regarding costs.

    As for BC/BS of CA and the other companies, I can't say they were or were not warranted. You apparently agree that health costs (again, COSTS for procedures and services and medications) continue to increase at a high rate. As far as I know, insurance companies don't have the ability to set these rates other than through negotiations with the various providers. I can't speak for these insurance carriers (or really, any for that matter), but here in SC I have not been told by any carrier that the mandates are for any more than 4%. And yes, I have had groups renew for more than a 10% increase. By the way, a different story on the individual side. What we are seeing is that insurance companies are even tighter in underwriting as they prepare (yes, businesses, unlike government, has to prepare for future issues) for higher claims now for children as well as in 2014 for adults. And rates for individual policies are being raised to deal with the inflow of unhealthy children. Again, more outflows means the need for higher inflows. Not rocket science.
    I think you're missing my point. Your raises and rationale make perfect sense (that is very hard to say). But you have no idea how the calculation was made that determines how much the difference will cost. I'm pretty sure you're not involved in that calculation, but if you are, please enlighten me. And there's also the possibility that your companies are not trying to game the system and profit from the situation of a changing game. However, I'd like you to explain why some companies are raising their premiums by 7% and others by 40%. Differing coverage? Then why the changes BEFORE health care reform, which led to record profits? While you claim they don't have the choice to set prices for health care costs, they sure do for premiums. Is there some rationale for why the insurance companies have record profits at this point in time if they are simply passing along the increased costs through premiums? I'm far from an expert, but common sense suggests that they are making their customers pay much much more than they are paying out, right? Simple equation, as you point out. Record profits. Keep that phrase in mind when you try to justify 40% premium increases. Making a profit isn't necessarily evil. It's only evil if the profit is unwarranted, based on lies and takes advantage of working people and their families. I'm sure you agree.
  7. #567  
    Yo davidra....our "reaching across the aisle" SC Senator, Graham, is getting a petition going to allow states to opt out of "obamacare".

    Graham pushes care act repeal | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment

    Interesting article....3 doctors signed the petition and 2 doctors declined to sign it. They give their reasons for declining and I'm sure you'll agree with them. Just goes to show you that while it is divisive among regular folk, it appears to be divisive among doctors as well. I thought all doctors went along with the AMA?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. #568  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I think you're missing my point. Your raises and rationale make perfect sense (that is very hard to say). But you have no idea how the calculation was made that determines how much the difference will cost. I'm pretty sure you're not involved in that calculation, but if you are, please enlighten me. And there's also the possibility that your companies are not trying to game the system and profit from the situation of a changing game. However, I'd like you to explain why some companies are raising their premiums by 7% and others by 40%. Differing coverage? Then why the changes BEFORE health care reform, which led to record profits? While you claim they don't have the choice to set prices for health care costs, they sure do for premiums. Is there some rationale for why the insurance companies have record profits at this point in time if they are simply passing along the increased costs through premiums? I'm far from an expert, but common sense suggests that they are making their customers pay much much more than they are paying out, right? Simple equation, as you point out. Record profits. Keep that phrase in mind when you try to justify 40% premium increases. Making a profit isn't necessarily evil. It's only evil if the profit is unwarranted, based on lies and takes advantage of working people and their families. I'm sure you agree.
    No....I'm not involved in the calculation of rate increases nor the process, are you? I said in my post I had no way of knowing if the requested increases were warranted or not....I can't say much more than that. Funny how when people discuss the recent profits of health insurance companies they discuss it in terms of "record profits" rather than their profit margin. I wonder why? hmmm....I wonder. I do think it is entirely possible that some premiums are increasing now to deal with what is likely to be a decrease in proftis in the coming years. Remember the little ant that put aside more food for the winter? But I'm just speculating.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. #569  
    ...uh oh...the wrench has been thrown into the works...profit margins...
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  10. #570  
    ...down with big publishing: profit margin 33%
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  11. #571  
    ...accident and health insurance: 7.5%
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  12. #572  
    You know, this thread has convinced me that all the opponents of the bill are correct, and that we should have just gone with the more sensible plan pushed by the Republicans during all those years when they controlled the White House and Congress.

    Oh, wait . . . I guess there wasn't a push, was there?

    Not true! What am I thinking? There was the massive, ***$193-billion*** taxpayer-funded giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies!



    And I remember some very, very, very forceful suggestions, in slightly raised voices, about "tort reform" also!

    And it was Republicans who originally proposed the part of the bill that was later lampooned by Republicans (I know, I know, but you gotta keep up) as "Death Panels." Oh, right, that didn't pass . . .

    Well, in the end, we got Romney-care, so they'll be happy, right?

    I think I'm opposed to something because I support something else. I'll get back to you.
  13. #573  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    You know, this thread has convinced me that all the opponents of the bill are correct, and that we should have just gone with the more sensible plan pushed by the Republicans during all those years when they controlled the White House and Congress.

    Oh, wait . . . I guess there wasn't a push, was there?

    Not true! What am I thinking? There was the massive, ***$193-billion*** taxpayer-funded giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies!



    And I remember some very, very, very forceful suggestions, in slightly raised voices, about "tort reform" also!

    And it was Republicans who originally proposed the part of the bill that was later lampooned by Republicans (I know, I know, but you gotta keep up) as "Death Panels." Oh, right, that didn't pass . . .

    Well, in the end, we got Romney-care, so they'll be happy, right?

    I think I'm opposed to something because I support something else. I'll get back to you.
    ...big statist republicans are worse than their lefty bed-mates....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  14. #574  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ...big statist republicans are worse than their lefty bed-mates....
    I know what you're against, but not sure what you're for. In the particular case of health care, would that be the pre-Obama status quo by any chance? Probably would be better called the "default," because it's the sort of thing you get when nobody has the political courage to actually fix broken things.
  15. #575  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    I know what you're against, but not sure what you're for. In the particular case of health care, would that be the pre-Obama status quo by any chance? Probably would be better called the "default," because it's the sort of thing you get when nobody has the political courage to actually fix broken things.
    Like how no one has the guts to fix social security because if they suggest anything, then they get accused of wanting to take social security away from every senior citizen? I believe term limits would give our representatives the courage to fix things and do the right thing without having to worry about their next re-election. I'm tired of the solution that everyone has is to just raise taxes. There has to come a point where SOME ONE must make the tough decisions and say we simply can't keep spending at this pace. I don't care whether Republican, democrat, Independant, Tea Party member, or whatever.....we simply can not keep spending at this pace. We must stop this madness!!!!!!!!! And sending pelosi and reid back to DC is certainly not going to stop this madness.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. #576  
    ...term limits!!!!
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  17.    #577  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    I know what you're against, but not sure what you're for. In the particular case of health care, would that be the pre-Obama status quo by any chance? Probably would be better called the "default," because it's the sort of thing you get when nobody has the political courage to actually fix broken things.
    Simply, it's because they lack the courage to admit that they have nothing that will solve the problem, and they aren't even willing to address the issue. They just don't care that 30 million people will get coverage they didn't have before. Moving backwards is the conservative plan, because they have no options. They will throw out laughable options like tort reform and cross-state insurance plans as if they actually would do anything toward solving the problem. Laughable.
  18. #578  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Simply, it's because they lack the courage to admit that they have nothing that will solve the problem, and they aren't even willing to address the issue. They just don't care that 30 million people will get coverage they didn't have before. Moving backwards is the conservative plan, because they have no options. They will throw out laughable options like tort reform and cross-state insurance plans as if they actually would do anything toward solving the problem. Laughable.


    We have an insane amount of debt.
    We have an economy that many believe will never be what it was in the 90s again. [not saying it won't get better]
    We have states that are going bankrupt and shutting down ESSENTIAL operations such as courthouses etc.
    We have severe budget issues with SS.
    I could go on and on with the problems that we love to ignore and fill this post and have to make another, but my point is made.


    I'm not gonna say that I'm a fan of everything conservative but BOTH SIDES have problems and BOTH SIDES have some decent ideas.

    Point simply is... it's not about not caring about those 30 million people.
    [Most my friends DO NOT have health coverage. In fact, I only do because my parents are nice enough to pay for the premium while I'm in college.]

    It's about costs and its about practicality.
    If you could truly streamline the system so it results in lower costs without an increase in government costs and excessive paperwork then yeah, I'm for the system being redone.
    That's not what we're talking about here.
    We're talking about spending trillions more that we DON'T have.

    Another thing:
    American's do a lot of wanting.
    The sense of entitlement in this country has NEVER been so high.
    The idea of taking money that someone else makes because YOU FEEL it's too much and putting it into the pockets of others is...questionable on an ethical basis.


    You wanna help people and do this?
    Fine.
    But find a more practical way of doing it and not just adding to the problems we already have.
    Last edited by Mattykinsx; 10/31/2010 at 08:06 PM.
  19.    #579  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mattykinsx View Post


    We have an insane amount of debt.
    We have an economy that many believe will never be what it was in the 90s again. [not saying it won't get better]
    We have states that are going bankrupt and shutting down ESSENTIAL operations such as courthouses etc.
    We have severe budget issues with SS.
    I could go on and on with the problems that we love to ignore.


    I'm not gonna say that I'm a fan of everything conservative but BOTH SIDES have problems and BOTH SIDES have some decent ideas.

    Point simply is... it's not about not caring about those 30 million people.
    [Most my friends DO NOT have health coverage. In fact, I only do because my parents are nice enough to pay for the premium while I'm in college.]

    It's about costs and its about practicality.
    If you could truly streamline the system so it results in lower costs without an increase in government costs and excessive paperwork then yeah, I'm for the system being redone.
    That's not what we're talking about here.
    We're talking about spending trillions more that we DON'T have.

    Another thing:
    American's do a lot of wanting.
    The sense of entitlement in this country has NEVER been so high.
    The idea of taking money that someone else makes because YOU FEEL it's too much and putting it into the pockets of others is...questionable on an ethical basis.


    You wanna help people and do this?
    Fine.
    But find a more practical way of doing it and not just adding to the problems we already have.
    Fine. Allow me to develop a single payor system, get rid of health insurance companies and their high overhead and "record profits", limit the use of tests and drugs to those proven to be effective, cut the military budget by a half, negotiate costs of drugs like every other country on earth, continue the aggressive prosecution of fraud as the current administration is doing, and limit reimbursement based on some kind of rational system.

    What is essential kind of depends on whether or not you're the uninsured person with leukemia. Something tells me that person might not think courthouses being remodeled is as important as you. And most importantly, the care that uninsured people receive is inadequate and inefficient and just makes things worse, since the charity care is passed along to everyone else. In care you don't know it, and haven't been following the thread, 80% of the uninsured are from working families. You can choose to ignore their health care needs, like conservatives have been doing forever. I maintain there is nothing else that is worth more this country than adequate safe health care....except maybe a great educational system. You can take your subsidies to big business and put them toward health care. That would help.

    Your money is being taken from you and put in the pocket of....well, the military, people that build your interstate and protect your homes, your grandparents and the poor for their health care, the oil companies, the corn growers....do I need to go on? That's what taxes are about. This is already happening. It's the basis of this country and always has been. If you want to get a great view on how absurd our perspective on taxation has become, just watch this video from 60 Minutes that interviewed David Stockman. Yes, the David Stockman who was Ronald Reagan's buget director. Think he might have a useful perspective? He does.

    Deficits: Taxing The Rich - 60 Minutes - CBS News
  20. #580  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Fine. Allow me to develop a single payor system, get rid of health insurance companies and their high overhead and "record profits", limit the use of tests and drugs to those proven to be effective, cut the military budget by a half, negotiate costs of drugs like every other country on earth, continue the aggressive prosecution of fraud as the current administration is doing, and limit reimbursement based on some kind of rational system.
    Yup....this will reduce the deficit Just remember, the CBO numbers that I GUARANTEE will be proven to be way off in 10 years (likely sooner), were not based on a single-payer system and were based on many assumptions that likely won't happen. So, the single payor system that you continue to tout as the Rx for our medical problems will absolutely bankrupt this country, just as Medicare and Social Security will do if drastic changes aren't made to them. It's amazing how you completely ignore the funding of these magical plans of yours when we all know that they can't last at their current pace:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/bu...cial.html?_r=1

    Social Security, Medicare Face Insolvency Sooner - WSJ.com

    As Mattykinsx discusses, we just don't have the money to do everything that everyone wants, at least not in the real world....only in the fantasy world that you seem to live in. Where apparently money just falls from the sky. Your answer to everything is to implement a single payor system and to pay for it with defense cuts....davidra saves us all!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Posting Permissions