The ECONOMICS of Health Care (PART1)
- Thread starter CrackerJax
- Start date
first things first, finally, a rational and well expressed, though incorrect argument AGAINST gov't health care.
now, how can I take CJ seriously when he starts posting these misleading editorials (this is not news)? let's take a quote, from the introduction of the article:
Since governments get the resources used for medical care by taking those resources from the general population through taxation, there is no net reduction in the cost of maintaining health or curing sicknesses simply because the money is routed through political institutions and government bureaucracies, rather than being paid directly by patients to doctors. (this alone defeats Obama assertion that $$ will be saved .. CJ)
this author purposely states this as a fact. it is his thesis statement and should (and is) supported by arguments. the problem with the article is that costs of healthcare are lower in countries with government run programs. the HIGHEST healthcare costs in the world are in the U.S.A. it can be seen by life expectancy rates that the US also lacks quality in its health care. so basically higher cost doesn't necessarily mean better quality, regardless of what insurance companies say.
now, if the first sentence that makes a meaningful reference to the topic of the article is clearly wrong, how can I read the rest of it and actually believe it?? i can't.
now, how can I take CJ seriously when he starts posting these misleading editorials (this is not news)? let's take a quote, from the introduction of the article:
Since governments get the resources used for medical care by taking those resources from the general population through taxation, there is no net reduction in the cost of maintaining health or curing sicknesses simply because the money is routed through political institutions and government bureaucracies, rather than being paid directly by patients to doctors. (this alone defeats Obama assertion that $$ will be saved .. CJ)
this author purposely states this as a fact. it is his thesis statement and should (and is) supported by arguments. the problem with the article is that costs of healthcare are lower in countries with government run programs. the HIGHEST healthcare costs in the world are in the U.S.A. it can be seen by life expectancy rates that the US also lacks quality in its health care. so basically higher cost doesn't necessarily mean better quality, regardless of what insurance companies say.
now, if the first sentence that makes a meaningful reference to the topic of the article is clearly wrong, how can I read the rest of it and actually believe it?? i can't.
CrackerJax
New Member
It is placed in the editorial column correctly. That's first. It is a portion of a well researched book by one of the highest respected economic minds in the country today.
So who do we believe? Obama, with NO experience, or Thomas Sowell, who is eminently qualified, and also who has NOTHING to gain by lying.
Obama is the liar..... anyone with any economic experience coupled with past govt. performance knows that much. that's just BASIC!!
If you can't figure that much out, you need to take some courses in economics.
So who do we believe? Obama, with NO experience, or Thomas Sowell, who is eminently qualified, and also who has NOTHING to gain by lying.
Obama is the liar..... anyone with any economic experience coupled with past govt. performance knows that much. that's just BASIC!!
If you can't figure that much out, you need to take some courses in economics.
medicineman
New Member
Think what 300 billion would do to treat those without health care, that is the amount the insurance companies keep for profit, the amount that does nothing to promote health care.
Sidewinder73
Active Member
The difference here is that CJ's pie chart sites a source. Where as you posted something which has not been cited. Therefore, CJ's pie chart carries more weight in this debate. I am not saying you made your chart up. I am just saying we don't know where your info came from. I also forgot that libs think that profit is a terrible thing. No one should make profit, spread the wealth. The real reason why our insurance is so high is thanks to lawyers and malpractice insurance.Here's a different poll, probably more like the truth. One can find polls to fit ones own opinion, all one has to do is look. I found this in 10 seconds.
Think what 300 billion would do to treat those without health care, that is the amount the insurance companies keep for profit, the amount that does nothing to promote health care.
medicineman
New Member
Why, just like CJ, I got my pie chart right off the internet. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960 You like me now? The real reason our insurance is so high has little to do with malpractice, less than 2% in fact.( Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. ...)http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0
It is the huge 30% profit margins the insurance industry allows itself. That same 30% profit (300 billion with a "B") would go a long ways towards covering everyone. In fact, if the medical costs are 1 Trillion, and 300 Billion is roughly 1/3, and the us population is roughly 307 million, 1/3 of that is 102 million, so, we could cover 102 million people with the profit from the insurance companies or cover everyone by eliminating them and having single payer. Oh, and I'd be sure and let you keep your exhorbitant health care plan. So why are you so paranoid, the commies are coming, the commies are coming.
natrone23
Well-Known Member
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Holy macaroni.
med asserts that the health insurance industry achieves a 30% profit margin...even for you med this is an outlandish overstatement of the true margins.
The true recent profit margin is a little over 2%
Wowee!
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif].....[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
....
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]---[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]excerpts from[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html[/FONT]
med asserts that the health insurance industry achieves a 30% profit margin...even for you med this is an outlandish overstatement of the true margins.
The true recent profit margin is a little over 2%
Wowee!
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif].....[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
....
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]---[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]excerpts from[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html[/FONT]
the entire system is to blame for the high costs of health care in this country. the only way to change the trend of higher and higher costs is to change the system...
polls mean nothing if not properly executed. my line of work relies mainly on statistics and i know how numbers can be manipulated. a former professor and good friend of mine calls it "seeing what you want to see in the numbers, and proving it true, no matter what the reality is, or what the data says".... that is why conservatives and liberals alike can come up with a poll that is supposedly representative of the population, asking the very same questions, and come up with completely different conclusions...
I see polls and they mean nothing. unless i work intimately in executing it.
polls mean nothing if not properly executed. my line of work relies mainly on statistics and i know how numbers can be manipulated. a former professor and good friend of mine calls it "seeing what you want to see in the numbers, and proving it true, no matter what the reality is, or what the data says".... that is why conservatives and liberals alike can come up with a poll that is supposedly representative of the population, asking the very same questions, and come up with completely different conclusions...
I see polls and they mean nothing. unless i work intimately in executing it.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Amen brother! Polls are all b.s. as are most policticians and the political process itself.
medicineman
New Member
Geeze wavels, did you know this:
On Oct. 24, an article in The Daily Sentinel stated that Rep. John Salazar had asked Howard Dean to remove his name as one supporting the public option from Deans Web site. Is Salazar aware the United States is the only major country in the world that permits health insurers to make a profit and thereby cause the problems with people losing their insurance, because keeping their insurance would lower the insurers profits? To put this nations health care system in perspective relative to the rest of the world read T.R. Reids The Healing of America.
We cannot afford health care reform without competition from a non-profit insurer. Why do the Blue Dogs have so much trouble understanding that?
A non-profit organization does not have to cost the taxpayer anything once it is set up and running. It would charge premiums that would necessarily be less expensive than for-profit insurers because it wouldnt have to sell its product, would have far lower administrative cost, and would not have to pay dividends to stockholders. Every other country in the world understands this. Why dont the Blue Dogs?
Since 20 percent to 30 percent of the $2.5 trillion the country spends each year on health care is soaked by the insurance industry with no contribution to our well being, you dont have to be an economist to understand that replacing for-profit insurance providers with non-profit insurers would save us a tremendous amount of money. The administrative costs of Medicare are only a few percent.
A majority of Americans want a public option. Rep. Salazar should vote for the passage of the public option and urge his colleagues in Congress to follow his example. He should either support the formation of a non-profit insurance organization or plan on finding a new job in 2011.
Pay attention, we are supporting CEOs off the backs of the ill. Is this a Christian proposition? Medical should be a right, not an expense, especially to those that can not afford it. I thought you were a "good christian". Yes I realize that medical is not free, a medical tax would replace insurance premiums, and profit would be exorcized. not a minute too soon I might add.
On Oct. 24, an article in The Daily Sentinel stated that Rep. John Salazar had asked Howard Dean to remove his name as one supporting the public option from Deans Web site. Is Salazar aware the United States is the only major country in the world that permits health insurers to make a profit and thereby cause the problems with people losing their insurance, because keeping their insurance would lower the insurers profits? To put this nations health care system in perspective relative to the rest of the world read T.R. Reids The Healing of America.
We cannot afford health care reform without competition from a non-profit insurer. Why do the Blue Dogs have so much trouble understanding that?
A non-profit organization does not have to cost the taxpayer anything once it is set up and running. It would charge premiums that would necessarily be less expensive than for-profit insurers because it wouldnt have to sell its product, would have far lower administrative cost, and would not have to pay dividends to stockholders. Every other country in the world understands this. Why dont the Blue Dogs?
Since 20 percent to 30 percent of the $2.5 trillion the country spends each year on health care is soaked by the insurance industry with no contribution to our well being, you dont have to be an economist to understand that replacing for-profit insurance providers with non-profit insurers would save us a tremendous amount of money. The administrative costs of Medicare are only a few percent.
A majority of Americans want a public option. Rep. Salazar should vote for the passage of the public option and urge his colleagues in Congress to follow his example. He should either support the formation of a non-profit insurance organization or plan on finding a new job in 2011.
Pay attention, we are supporting CEOs off the backs of the ill. Is this a Christian proposition? Medical should be a right, not an expense, especially to those that can not afford it. I thought you were a "good christian". Yes I realize that medical is not free, a medical tax would replace insurance premiums, and profit would be exorcized. not a minute too soon I might add.
CrackerJax
New Member
Lawyers and the govt. are to blame mostly for the high cost of medicine.
Two pariah entities which feed off the medical industry and give NOTHING back.
Want to regulate an industry? Try tackling the only one left unregulated by govt...... lawyers.
Two pariah entities which feed off the medical industry and give NOTHING back.
Want to regulate an industry? Try tackling the only one left unregulated by govt...... lawyers.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for a long term period of time, because they are too poor to purchase health care but make too much to qualify for government assistance. Even though these people are without insurance they have access to healthcare, because federal law prohibits hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at hospital emergency rooms. The average household in the U.S. has 2.5 people. This means there are 3.3 million households out of 114 million households without health insurance. That is 2.9% of all the households in the U.S. This appears to be an awfully small percentage of Americans to warrant a $1 trillion new government bureaucracy. National health spending in 2009 will reach $2.5 trillion. This comes to $8,000 per person. If we gave the 8.2 million Americans without health insurance an $8,000 voucher for healthcare, it would cost $65.6 billion. This amounts to a stimulus plan rounding error. The truth is that Obama and the Democratic statists in Congress don’t want to make healthcare better or more efficient. They want control of your life.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." - Thomas Sowell[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." - Thomas Sowell[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
CrackerJax
New Member
The point being (which sailed straight over ur head) the only industry which is NOT regulated is the Legal industry.
Why not them? It's a fair question and a BRILLIANT observation.
Ur second point is actually accurate even though U have no idea why. I'm shocked.....
When government doesn't get involved prices come down.
Lasic Eye surgery in 1999 $2106 in 2004 it was $1626.
Quality has also increased greatly.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It's important to understand that government health care spending
is the real cause of America's health care crisis.
Government already pays for nearly half of all medical care in this country.
Bureaucrats decide what the government will pay for any given procedure.
Lobbyists influence the prices the bureaucrats set.
Insurance companies then follow the government's lead in terms of what they will pay.
You socialist would be funny if you wheren't so dangerous.
Lasic Eye surgery in 1999 $2106 in 2004 it was $1626.
Quality has also increased greatly.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It's important to understand that government health care spending
is the real cause of America's health care crisis.
Government already pays for nearly half of all medical care in this country.
Bureaucrats decide what the government will pay for any given procedure.
Lobbyists influence the prices the bureaucrats set.
Insurance companies then follow the government's lead in terms of what they will pay.
You socialist would be funny if you wheren't so dangerous.
CrackerJax
New Member
If anyone actually believes the govt. can ratchet down the cost of ANYTHING ... ur living in a fog.