mikem12 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 There is no efficiency if the government is running it, no matter what "it" is. The government exists to gain more and more power for itself and take more and more freedom away from the people. that there is a true statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Unlike insurance companies....only the salt of the earth works at those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Ford Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Unlike insurance companies....only the salt of the earth works at those. It's not about the quality of the people, its about the intentions and incentives. A private company has to stay afloat and must provide equilibrium or near equilibrium output. The government run program doesn't have those kind of budget constrains and is trying to provide a non-equilibrium output. The government run program is intentionally and inherently less efficient, but that's not its purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Can someone explain to me why, of all things, health care should becomes a guaranteed right provided by taxpayer money and government run? As opposed to you paying for it with your post tax income as are companies . And run by buisness whose main goal is bottom line profits? As I understand it, the benefits from it will only affect a small amount of society and there are far more fundamental needs in life than guaranteed free medical attention. Given the limited nature of medical resources, the cost from Moral Hazard of of "free" medical care would also be high. Actually the spin off is far reaching in costs finacial and societal. You do not end up with an under class of individuals that can not affored proper health care and only seek medical help when absolulty nessesary this cost the taxpayers more for treatment than prevention, also since individuals are more apt to seek medical care when initially ill there is less chance of them becoming severly ill and possibly spreading a contagius illness. There is no moral hazard as you are paying for it we know that and do not abuse it, it is not FREE, we pay for it with our taxes. The Gov't is the insurance company if the system is abused 2 things happen either service is cut or taxes go up. No different than what happens with health insurance in the U.S service is cut or premiums go up. The whole, 'it would better if it were run by the government because of profits' reason doesn't fly. Not only does it contradict economics, but if that were the case the government should run everything, not just health care. Using Canada as an example due to higher efficiency doesn't make sense either, sometimes smaller systems are less complicated and less expensive to run. Systems with high marginal costs, like Medicine, are much more likely to experience diminishing returns to scale. See this where most Americans do not understand the system. The Fed government does NOT run it. They regulate it. The provinces adminster the dispesrment of the funds to Health regions that are made up of non profit organizations and regional health managment organizations. The system is not govenement run but Gov't funded/insured and regulated. By doing this you do not end up with a bloated Gov't run system, it is kept lean and efficiant. Health regions can save dollars on equipment as well through economies of scale they can order supplies through the Province that buys in huge bulk from medical suppliers or if they can swing a better deal themselvs they can go that route. They are given budgets just like any health facility here or in the states and are expeted to operate within them. And are audited regualarly for both cost efficiances and quality of care. Just remember only 1% of the health dollars spent in Canada are spent on administration and overhead the rest of it goes in to actual health care. Compared to 31% spent on overhead in the U.S. So our Gov't funded and regulated system is many many times more effciant than the U.S system. You pay for your health care just as we do here. It is not free. Canadians see health care as an essential service. It is as important as the Police, Fire Department, & Military. Now really would you privitize the Police the Fire Departments or the Military ? Health Care is as important to the security and well being of the nation as the Police Military and the Fire Departments are. We have a different perpsective on health care here than most Americans do. Accsses to health care is guarenteed in our Constution just as is free speach and the right bear arms is in the U.S Bill of Rights. Also we tend to trust our Gov't more here than Americans do but also our Gov't has not breached the trust of the taxpayers here to any where near the same degree as in the U.S We can not exepct all Americans to understand it or agree with it but it is what it is and it works for us and provides us with an equivelent (and in some areas better) leval of care as in the U.S, plus every one is covered and costs considerably less per person to fund. Matthew Edited June 16, 2009 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Unlike insurance companies....only the salt of the earth works at those. There is another evil. Why replace one evil with a worse one? Insurance companies will try to keep the cost of medical procedures high enough so that people can only afford them collectively, with the healthy paying as much as the sick. The solution is to go to the free market, user-pay system. Efficiencies would then be forced on the industry, instead of inefficiencies. Once the government has control of your health, what more do they need to control? That is one of the last vestiges of freedom that you have left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The government run program is intentionally and inherently less efficient, but that's not its purpose. No, because the government isn't worried about profit, they can be more efficient. They don't need a margin on the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) No, because the government isn't worried about profit, they can be more efficient. They don't need a margin on the top. CBO: Senate bill $1 trillion over 10 years ....and it results in an estimated drop in the number of uninsured by 1/3. (leaving a net 36 Million uninsured). That's $62,500 per person over 10 years. ($6,250 per person per year) My healthcare plan costs my company less than $4,800 (per year) for the individual, and $10,800 per year for my family of four. My (private) healthcare plan is less expensive even with UnitedHealthcare's profit built in. Edited June 16, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 There's something wrong with those numbers. There's no reason that the plan should be more. The US already has the second most expensive healthcare in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 No, because the government isn't worried about profit, they can be more efficient. They don't need a margin on the top. as with most any government run program the margin continues to shift of according to howmany administrators and assistants needed to run a program with no bottom end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 There's something wrong with those numbers. There's no reason that the plan should be more. The US already has the second most expensive healthcare in the world. Using the CBO's numbers.... $1 trillion divided by 16 million equals $62,500 per. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm not disputing your math, I'm simply wondering why the amount is so high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Using the CBO's numbers.... $1 trillion divided by 16 million equals $62,500 per. and according to info I heard there is an other 39 mil still not covered. It just isn't feasible for the avarage tax payer to fund this. Especially now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) CBO: Senate bill $1 trillion over 10 years ....and it results in an estimated drop in the number of uninsured by 1/3. (leaving a net 36 Million uninsured). That's $62,500 per person over 10 years. ($6,250 per person per year) My healthcare plan costs my company less than $4,800 (per year) for the individual, and $10,800 per year for my family of four. My (private) healthcare plan is less expensive even with UnitedHealthcare's profit built in. That is for you and you alone. And do you copay like many individuals do in the states with company plans ? Also are you covered for every thing possible that could put you in the hopspital or to see the doctor. And those costs do nothing to alieviate the uninsured. Also your company is paying it Giving them a huge disadvantage in the market place. Also a portion of your taxes and the compnaies taxes are still going to cover the unisured. The totoal cost is not $4,800 per year per person. So your company gets to pay that to cover you, plus you and your company get to pay addtional $2,639 per year per year to cover one other individual that is not insured . So the totoal cost is not just $4,800 but an actual $7,439 per year. That is what the U.S spends per capita on health care $7,439. Compared to our $4,867 per year per capitia. Your health insurance costs for you alone not counting the addtional taxes collected from you or your company to cover the uninsured is only $87 less than what we pay per peson TOTAL to cover the whole nation. So is it cheaper in the U.S, absolutly not. Basically if the U.S adopted the same exact system as Canada then the exsisting costs to cover your self and have coverage for every person in the U.S would just be an addtional $87 dollars per year above the $4,800 your company already pays for you alone. We sepnd 10% of our GDP on healthcare the U.S spends just over 16% of it's GDP on health care. A full 60% more of the GDP than we do. The figures do not lie. A person can twist it any they want and try to throw figures out there to try to make the U.S look more cost efective. But at the end of the day our system is still more cost effective in terms of dollars spent per capita and the percentage of the nations GDP that is spent on it. Matthew Edited June 16, 2009 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 as with most any government run program the margin continues to shift of according to howmany administrators and assistants needed to run a program with no bottom end. The biggest problem with government anything, is there is no reason to be efficient. A private company (presumably with competitors), has not only the profit motive to encourage efficiency, but the competition, as well. Would the U.S.P.S. be nearly as efficient if FedEx/UPS never existed? Doubt it. The government has no competition, and its profit motive is its ability to tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 When dealing with the lives of citizens and the quality of care, the government has every reason to try to be efficient....especially at the provincial (or state) level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 That is for you and you alone. And do you copay like many individuals do in the states with company plans? Also are you covered for every thing possible that could put you in the hopspital or to see the doctor. And those costs do nothing to alieviate the uninsured. Matthew I receive no government healthcare benefits so yes, I can compare them. You can't lump them together with what the country spends, because we are comparing the cost of the private vs. the government option. I'm covered for things that I don't need; psychiatric care and pregnancy are the first ones that come to mind, but also in my State every health insurance policy must cover the costs of certain procedures (pap smears, breast exams, etc) at 100%. It doesn't make sense that, since I'm a male, that I must be covered for pap smears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 When dealing with the lives of citizens and the quality of care, the government has every reason to try to be efficient....especially at the provincial (or state) level. SUV, I really do understand your feelings here, and I agree that a doctor has motive to be efficient. A person directly providing the care will be very efficient and presumably good as what he does, because the more patients (even Medicaire patients) he sees, the more money he makes. Also, and lending to your point of view, any doctor (who values the Hippocratic Oath) will just care more, and try to use his skills and time wisely so he can do more good for his patients. However, a bureaucracy (particularly a government-run bureaucracy) has no such motivation. I can think of no government-run agency with monopoly power that operates efficiently, save for (MAYBE) the agencies that deal with public safety. (Fire, police, military) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I receive no government healthcare benefits so yes, I can compare them. You can't lump them together with what the country spends, because we are comparing the cost of the private vs. the government option. I'm covered for things that I don't need; psychiatric care and pregnancy are the first ones that come to mind, but also in my State every health insurance policy must cover the costs of certain procedures (pap smears, breast exams, etc) at 100%. It doesn't make sense that, since I'm a male, that I must be covered for pap smears. But you can not compare the cost of private to Govenment without includeding the addtional cost of covering those that have no coverage or inadequate coverage the system in the U.S it is not Govement run but government funded and privatly run for medicare. Also those are your premiums. I assume by the way you talk you are a healthy individual with no health concerns. What happens if you are diabetic or have a history of health related problems? That $4800 a year increass drastically or if you may not be elegible at all for coverage. And you never awnswered if you copay like most Americans do with company plans. The Point is your $4800 a year is only $87 less than what we pay per person to cover the whole nation. Rememebr these are insurance premiums and insurance is exactly that insurance you pay as per the risk you pose to a pay out. Plus the Gov't still kicks in a portion of dollars for health care for R&D and expnasions in the from of Grants. So to say that it only costs $4800per year is not correct. If you got to the hospital once you will still be using some Gov't funding for your care. If you have never had a major illness then you are low risk and pay pemiums in realtion to that. That is why you can not just use one case to base an opinion. The U.S spends $7439 per person in the U.S in healthcare that is not the govt paid portion but totoal costs across the nation private and Govt per capita. Remember the bulk of health care administered in the U.S is done in by private for profit facilities. Again you can try to state the numbers any way you can, but the healthcare system in the states is a more costly and less efficiant to operate than any single user pay or universal system on the planet. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) SUV, I really do understand your feelings here, and I agree that a doctor has motive to be efficient. A person directly providing the care will be very efficient and presumably good as what he does, because the more patients (even Medicaire patients) he sees, the more money he makes. Also, and lending to your point of view, any doctor (who values the Hippocratic Oath) will just care more, and try to use his skills and time wisely so he can do more good for his patients. However, a bureaucracy (particularly a government-run bureaucracy) has no such motivation. I can think of no government-run agency with monopoly power that operates efficiently, save for (MAYBE) the agencies that deal with public safety. (Fire, police, military) Again get off the Govt Run thing. Our health care system is run by health proffesionals and prvate non profit health organizations that are FUNDED by the Gov't. The Govt has little say in day to day operations other than to make sure that the health regions are meeting the care requirements and folowing the Heath Canada Guidlines. Our ministrys of health are very very small compared to the U.S on a percapita basis. As they are basically just a regulatory body to insure the Provinces (Federal Health Ministry) and health regions (Provincial Health Ministries) are meeting the minumum requirments. And this job is actually not as involved as one would think as most all the Provinces and Health Regions far exceeed the minmum requirements. Matthew Edited June 16, 2009 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Mathew, the US spends more on medical research and development than Canada spends on its entire health care budget. Please stop trying to equate Canada and the US. Why is this issue so important to Canadians? Why can't you just leave us alone to figure out our own solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Mathew, the US spends more on medical research and development than Canada spends on its entire health care budget. Please stop trying to equate Canada and the US. Why is this issue so important to Canadians? Why can't you just leave us alone to figure out our own solution? And your point is? What's the per capita expenditure? Considering the difference in population, it might turn out that Canada spends as much or more per person on medical research and development. Why is this issue so important to Canadians? Simple. We have our own conservative "free market" fascists, who continually strive for a "2-tier" health care system, where the rich can buy their way to the head of the line. So, we have to be vigilant. As to your situation, it really is of minor interest to most Canadians, excapt that reading about the horror stories of what happens to those in poverty makes us appreciate how well our system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Teddy Care Ted Kennedy Bill Could Send Your Gun Info Into A Massive FederalDatabase -- And you could be forced to spend $13,000 of your own money toward this effort! Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Tuesday, June 16, 2009 At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care system he wants to foist on the whole country -- and it isn't pretty. It won't be pretty for your pocket book... OR FOR YOUR GUN RIGHTS! But first, let us explain what TeddyCare is all about. At the center of the plan is what's called a "universal mandate." What this means is that you -- and virtually everyone in the country -- will have to buy as much health insurance as the government demands, and that insurance plan will actually have to be approved by the government. If you work for a small business, the business will buy the insurance on your behalf. But you may be saddled with an enormous part of the cost. And, if the employer's contribution is too large, you will be fired. If you fail to buy TeddyCare, as the government orders you to do, the IRS will fine you, garnish your wages, put a lien on your house, and, ultimately, put you in prison. How much will you have to spend on your TeddyCare insurance? Teddy's not saying. The portion of your paycheck that will have to be forked over to Teddy's latest social experiment will be revealed ONLY AFTER THE MASSIVE HEALTH CARE BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW. This should set off alarm bells in your brain, because, for instance, the average family policy is currently $12,700. "So," proclaims Teddy, "everyone's going to get a subsidy to pay for this." There's going to be a "chicken in every pot," and no one's going to have to pay for it. Yeah, right. If you're a welfare mother, the government will pay for your TeddyCare, and it would pay for it -- the first time -- by taxing employer-provided health benefits of working Americans. But if you a "working Joe" your Kennedy-subsidy will be a microscopic fraction of the cost of your mandated TeddyCare insurance policy. Okay, all of this sounds ominous... but why is this a gun issue? The answer is that TeddyCare will allow radical left Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print in every TeddyCare policy -- which you will be required to buy under penalty of imprisonment. Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of computerizing all of your most confidential medical records and putting them into a federal database. So remember when your son was asked by his pediatrician about your gun collection? That would be in the federal database. Or remember when your wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago -- thereby potentially barring both her and you from ever owning a gun again? That would be in the database. Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he's had emotional stress since coming back to the States, that would be in the database. Or remember when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, thereby making him a "mental defective" who would have to relinquish his life-long gun collection? That's in there too. And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE'S private data in a database with a stroke of a pen. When we say "everyone," we don't mean quite everyone. Teddy has conveniently excluded Washington bureaucrats from his TeddyCare mandate. Also, Teddy and his friends in the media don't want you to hear about the details until after the bill is passed. That's why they're trying to slam it through within the next month and a half before anyone's had a chance to read or debate it. In fact, the TeddyCare proposal is currently circulating around Capitol Hill without even a bill number. ACTION: Urge your two U.S. Senators to oppose Sen. Ted Kennedy's mandate that will result in the registration of all your gun information. Please forward this email to your friends and family and urge them to contact their Senators as well. You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below. ----- Pre-written letter ----- Dear Senator: At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care system he wants to foist on the whole country -- and it isn't pretty. At the center of the TeddyCare plan is what's called a "universal mandate." What this means is that I -- and virtually everyone in the country -- will have to buy as much health insurance as the government demands, and that insurance plan will actually have to be approved by the government. But this is not only an issue of individual freedom; it is a gun issue. This is because Teddycare will allow radical left Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print in every Teddycare policy -- which Americans will be required to buy under penalty of imprisonment. Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of computerizing all of our most confidential medical records and putting them into a federal database. So if a kid is asked by his pediatrician about his dad's gun collection, that would be in the federal database. Or if a wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago -- thereby potentially barring both her and her husband from ever owning a gun again, that would be in the database. Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he's had emotional stress since coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, that would be in the database. Or when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, thereby making him a "mental defective" who would have to relinquish his life-long gun collection, that would be in there too. And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE'S private data in a database with a stroke of a pen. You cannot imagine how angry I, my family, and my neighbors are about this most recent fraud scheme to cheat me out of perhaps over $10,000 for TeddyCare -- and to violate my privacy in the process. I insist that you oppose TeddyCare -- immediately and loudly. Please do not try to shower me with propaganda about how a mandate on how I spend my own money is somehow good for me. Sincerely, **************************** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 As to your situation, it really is of minor interest to most Canadians, excapt that reading about the horror stories of what happens to those in poverty makes us appreciate how well our system works. It's also important for us to dispel myths and lies related to the system that exists in this country. Canada is always touted as an example of what not to do, and it's not entirely clear to me as to why that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Again get off the Govt Run thing. Our health care system is run by health proffesionals and prvate non profit health organizations that are FUNDED by the Gov't. The Govt has little say in day to day operations other than to make sure that the health regions are meeting the care requirements and folowing the Heath Canada Guidlines. Our ministrys of health are very very small compared to the U.S on a percapita basis. As they are basically just a regulatory body to insure the Provinces (Federal Health Ministry) and health regions (Provincial Health Ministries) are meeting the minumum requirments. And this job is actually not as involved as one would think as most all the Provinces and Health Regions far exceeed the minmum requirements. Matthew Remember, this is America where the President fires the CEO of a Fortune 500 Company, and the Congress inject themselves into whether or not the same company can/should close facilities (presumably in an effort to become profitable, and get the government monkey off its back). This is what they do when they say they aren't meddling. Keep this in mind when you say, "The Govt has little say in day to day operations", and that it has absolutely nothing in common with American Government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) -delete double post- Edited June 17, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.