I haven't heard of any insurance policy that covers Prostate cancer. Does health insurance have any role in detecting such cancer?
Total Comments: 14
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:25 am Post Subject:
Yes you are right, it would be impractical for the private insurance companies and government taking it all on itself would lead to the collapse of the economy.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 02:28 pm Post Subject:
it would be impractical for the private insurance companies and government taking it all on itself
That's a bit of a misparaphrase of my post. The government and the commercial insurers, working together, could make it work without ruining the economy further. But that's not "the plan".
Government's intent behind the new legislation is to drive the commercial insurance companies (a) into submission (AKA: profitless (not non-profit) entities) or (b) entirely out of the market (AKA: the self-fulfilling prophecy of a single-payer system). Because insurance companies are evil, profit-making corporations (does not work in a socialist state).
Either of these "solutions" is the epitome of socialism, which the Soviet Union proved (after about 60 years or so) is doomed to failure. The Soviet collapse was due in large part to the failure of the central government to admit that it was piling up untenable deficits. Here, Congress uses its own version of "funny math" to assert that "deficit spending = saving money" (Obamacare's $1+ trillion pricetag is touted to "save" a couple of hundred $billion. If anyone believes that, they probably have no idea how to do the addition and subtraction required to balance a checkbook).
Or they sell new bonds to pay the interest and principal on old ones (and that's just current "general fund" financing. That's also the plan to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat. But the world doesn't have enough money to buy the additional $87,000,000,000,000 in bonds that would need to be sold by 2040 to keep the system afloat forever into the future (the Trustees' "infinite horizon" time frame statements).
The raging deficits Obamacare will mandate are unsustainable. The commercial insurance industry cannot be cut out of the system of healthcare in America. But it also cannot be forced to assume risk it has no ability to decline or (ultimately) rate substandard.
A number of states have privately established high-risk pools to deal with the problem of their own residents who do not have and cannot afford health insurance in the commercial marketplace. And then the state works with the insurers to provide the benefits (very much like Assigned Risk Auto Insurance). That's all that Congress needed to do on a national level, which would allow the states to close down their high risk pools.
And they still could have turned it over to, or partnered with, the commercial insurance industry in the same way that they have created and operate Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, or have allowed HMOs and PPOs to contract to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries under the Medicare Advantage program.
THOSE programs literally do save the government money, even though the government is paying part of the cost for them. Why? Because the commercial insurance companies and HMOs and PPOs that participate know how to collect premiums, pay claims, commissions, and expenses, and still earn a profit. The federal government has yet to demonstrate that it can run any revenue-producing program profitably.
Accounting maxim #1: Figures never lie, but liars always figure.
The truth is that Obama and the voting majority in Congress lied to the American people about the inner workings and the costs of their system of national healthcare, disguised as "healthcare reform." Until the American people actually feel the negative effects, they will not comprehend how ill-conceived the whole plan was, and then it will almost be too late. The words "strengthen the system" will become the next political double-speak, as it has for Social Security and Medicare, instead of discussing the possibility of closing the system and turning it back over to the insurance industry to manage.
But at that point, why would they (the insurers) want to?
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 05:54 pm Post Subject: national health care
This country needs and deserves a govt.run single payer health care system that covers EVERY citizen.Other countries have it,it's successful,and it needs to happen here....Now!
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 08:32 pm Post Subject:
This country needs and deserves a govt.run single payer health care system that covers EVERY citizen.Other countries have it,it's successful,and it needs to happen here....Now!
Sir or Madam . . .
You obviously are not an economist, nor do you realize the economic impact of what you describe. Take a look at the bottom of the website in the following link to see the DAMAGE that our existing "single-payer" health care system for senior citizens is causing -- specifically, I'm referring to the COMBINED UNFUNDED LIABILITY of Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Plan. We have created one system we cannot afford, and you want a second. Obamacare will only make things worse.
The SS/MC unfunded liability in the Trustees' 2006 report (for 2005, the year prior to the inception of the PDP) was about $87,000,000,000,000. According to the debt clock at 12:30pm PST on 2/11/11, including the $19,627,000,000,000+ PDP shortfall, now exceeds $112,500,000,000,000, and is increasing by $1,000,000 every 9 second or so. Which means that without the PDP, SS/MC would still account for more than $91,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liability, an increase of more than $4 TRILLION dollars in just 5 years.
It would be societal-suicide to use the same single-payer system to provide health care to all US citizens. And there is no other model for Congress to rely upon -- certainly none from any other country in the world. We're already on the road to BANKRUPTCY . . . and you want more. Utterly irresponsible and economically impossible.
Visit this site for a dose of reality! You'll notice that the unfunded liability per citizen is almost FIVE TIMES as much as the total US assets per citizen. And we citizens don't each have $233,900 in assets (as of 12:30pm on 2/11/11).
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:25 am Post Subject:
Yes you are right, it would be impractical for the private insurance companies and government taking it all on itself would lead to the collapse of the economy.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 02:28 pm Post Subject:
it would be impractical for the private insurance companies and government taking it all on itself
That's a bit of a misparaphrase of my post. The government and the commercial insurers, working together, could make it work without ruining the economy further. But that's not "the plan".
Government's intent behind the new legislation is to drive the commercial insurance companies (a) into submission (AKA: profitless (not non-profit) entities) or (b) entirely out of the market (AKA: the self-fulfilling prophecy of a single-payer system). Because insurance companies are evil, profit-making corporations (does not work in a socialist state).
Either of these "solutions" is the epitome of socialism, which the Soviet Union proved (after about 60 years or so) is doomed to failure. The Soviet collapse was due in large part to the failure of the central government to admit that it was piling up untenable deficits. Here, Congress uses its own version of "funny math" to assert that "deficit spending = saving money" (Obamacare's $1+ trillion pricetag is touted to "save" a couple of hundred $billion. If anyone believes that, they probably have no idea how to do the addition and subtraction required to balance a checkbook).
Or they sell new bonds to pay the interest and principal on old ones (and that's just current "general fund" financing. That's also the plan to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat. But the world doesn't have enough money to buy the additional $87,000,000,000,000 in bonds that would need to be sold by 2040 to keep the system afloat forever into the future (the Trustees' "infinite horizon" time frame statements).
The raging deficits Obamacare will mandate are unsustainable. The commercial insurance industry cannot be cut out of the system of healthcare in America. But it also cannot be forced to assume risk it has no ability to decline or (ultimately) rate substandard.
A number of states have privately established high-risk pools to deal with the problem of their own residents who do not have and cannot afford health insurance in the commercial marketplace. And then the state works with the insurers to provide the benefits (very much like Assigned Risk Auto Insurance). That's all that Congress needed to do on a national level, which would allow the states to close down their high risk pools.
And they still could have turned it over to, or partnered with, the commercial insurance industry in the same way that they have created and operate Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, or have allowed HMOs and PPOs to contract to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries under the Medicare Advantage program.
THOSE programs literally do save the government money, even though the government is paying part of the cost for them. Why? Because the commercial insurance companies and HMOs and PPOs that participate know how to collect premiums, pay claims, commissions, and expenses, and still earn a profit. The federal government has yet to demonstrate that it can run any revenue-producing program profitably.
Accounting maxim #1: Figures never lie, but liars always figure.
The truth is that Obama and the voting majority in Congress lied to the American people about the inner workings and the costs of their system of national healthcare, disguised as "healthcare reform." Until the American people actually feel the negative effects, they will not comprehend how ill-conceived the whole plan was, and then it will almost be too late. The words "strengthen the system" will become the next political double-speak, as it has for Social Security and Medicare, instead of discussing the possibility of closing the system and turning it back over to the insurance industry to manage.
But at that point, why would they (the insurers) want to?
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 05:54 pm Post Subject: national health care
This country needs and deserves a govt.run single payer health care system that covers EVERY citizen.Other countries have it,it's successful,and it needs to happen here....Now!
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 08:32 pm Post Subject:
This country needs and deserves a govt.run single payer health care system that covers EVERY citizen.Other countries have it,it's successful,and it needs to happen here....Now!
Sir or Madam . . .
You obviously are not an economist, nor do you realize the economic impact of what you describe. Take a look at the bottom of the website in the following link to see the DAMAGE that our existing "single-payer" health care system for senior citizens is causing -- specifically, I'm referring to the COMBINED UNFUNDED LIABILITY of Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Plan. We have created one system we cannot afford, and you want a second. Obamacare will only make things worse.
The SS/MC unfunded liability in the Trustees' 2006 report (for 2005, the year prior to the inception of the PDP) was about $87,000,000,000,000. According to the debt clock at 12:30pm PST on 2/11/11, including the $19,627,000,000,000+ PDP shortfall, now exceeds $112,500,000,000,000, and is increasing by $1,000,000 every 9 second or so. Which means that without the PDP, SS/MC would still account for more than $91,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liability, an increase of more than $4 TRILLION dollars in just 5 years.
It would be societal-suicide to use the same single-payer system to provide health care to all US citizens. And there is no other model for Congress to rely upon -- certainly none from any other country in the world. We're already on the road to BANKRUPTCY . . . and you want more. Utterly irresponsible and economically impossible.
Visit this site for a dose of reality! You'll notice that the unfunded liability per citizen is almost FIVE TIMES as much as the total US assets per citizen. And we citizens don't each have $233,900 in assets (as of 12:30pm on 2/11/11).
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Add your comment