Jump to content


Member Since 19 Sep 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 12:17 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Coming ObamaCare Train Wreck

14 April 2014 - 10:37 PM

I just love how you obama sycophants move the goalposts.

"Smaller premium increases"???

Wasn't this piece of shit supposed to SAVE the average family $2500/yr?

In Topic: The Coming ObamaCare Train Wreck

14 April 2014 - 10:04 PM

Olsonist, perhaps you can explain why Obamacare has a price tag at all, since earlier you were claiming it will REDUCE the deficit?

In Topic: The Coming ObamaCare Train Wreck

11 April 2014 - 09:41 PM


The $200B over 10 years and $1T in the following decade is from the Congressional Budget Office.
The White House is merely repeating the CBO's estimate.



So? Are you implying that the Obama White House is not in agreement with this claim?


Intellectual honesty requires that you label this as the CBO's estimate.


Intellectual honesty would require that you acknowledge that the Obama administration trumpets this claim on the official White House web page without attribution of source and without dispute or counterpoint.


The length you Obama sycophants will go to in order to evade the meat of the issue is quite telling.

In Topic: So explain to me where the "affordable" is in the ACA???

11 April 2014 - 09:37 PM

Pretty good analysis by PolitiFact except for the disqualifier:

Even if it's correct, not everyone in the health policy arena believes that AHIP's calculation is relevant.

Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, said "what we should be looking at is the insurer return to capital. ... They make a lot of money relative to what they invest, and they do almost nothing for that money to hold down the growth in health care spending."

Meanwhile, some critics suggest that when AHIP points the finger at doctors and hospitals for health care cost inflation, it ignores its own role. Insurers, after all, sign the checks and could presumably use greater leverage to keep costs down.

However, our conclusion here doesn't argue one way or another on the question of whether private health insurance could be run more efficiently, whether private insurers should take on a bigger or a smaller role in the health care system, or whether more money should be spent for, say, doctors instead of insurance costs. We are merely checking whether AHIP provided accurate figures to answer the question it raised. And as far as we can tell, the group did. So we rate the claim in AHIP's ad True.


"Get rid of the private insurance companies, and the administrative duties will have to be absorbed by gov't." There is no way in hell a government bureauracy with an enslaved pool of payers, a unionized workforce, and no competition is more efficient than private companies constrained by competitive forces and the need to actually make rather than lose money."


Please explain to the rest of the class how health care prospers elsewhere in trade union run countries of the world


Which other country do you wish to discuss and compare?   It better be comparable to the USA in terms of demographic and cultural diversity, population size and distribution, and breadth of health problems.  Don't waste my time trying to talk about Denmark or Sweden.

In Topic: So explain to me where the "affordable" is in the ACA???

11 April 2014 - 09:32 PM

even better - look at the overhead of Medicare vs. Insurance company overhead.  


Medicare cost per benefit - read it and weep:


However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.

(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.)


Do you have problems with reading comprehension, or are you being intentionally obtuse?   I already told you that much of the overhead of medicare is hidden in that the administration of it is farmed-out to private companies.


Since the beginning of the Medicare program, CMS has contracted with private insurance companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers. Contracted processes include claims and payment processing, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation.


Get rid of the privates, and all that overhead has to be absorbed by federal bureaucracy.  Medicare's administrative costs look good because private insurance companies are doing most of the job for them. 


If government bureacracy is more efficient, why do they farm out all those contracted processes?