08-20-2009, 05:27 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
And no, administrative costs aren't the only reason not to use a co-op (I don't know why you dismiss it as an irrelevant concern, though- we are talking about literally billions of dollars being gobbled up unnecessarily in administrative fees. I thought you actually cared about wasting money). Co-ops are extremely expensive to start up (Senator Conrad, the co-op proponent, has suggested start-up costs of between $4 billion and $10 billion (these are just costs to get the thing running, and not the costs of maintaining it). Furthermore, what happens if the co-op starts to crash from lack of funding/underenrollment (limiting purchasing power and the effectiveness of the co-op)/etc? Does the entire co-op go under? Does the government bail it out? Co-ops in health care don't tend to do well at controlling costs, either. Group Health Cooperative in Washington, for example, has increased its premiums by 12.3% a year since 2000 (hard to sustain; there is a reason there aren't many surviving healthcare co-ops). You tell me- why are you in favor of co-ops? You are finding yourself increasingly alone on this quest, as Republicans already bailed out on the concept. |
|
08-20-2009, 05:32 AM | #12 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course I am concerned about administrative costs. If you would stop pretending to be an expert on everything (including what I am thinking), this conversation would be much more reasonable and productive. And that's why Obama is going to lose this one (he loses even if it passes). Because the public knows he is lying.[/QUOTE] |
||||
08-20-2009, 11:12 AM | #13 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
I didn't say I was in favor of co-ops. I do find the idea of membership-run co-ops far superior to govt.-run bureaucracies however.
The debate is academic, because there will not be a public option. It's co-ops or nothing at this point. |
08-20-2009, 11:16 AM | #14 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Btw, I just checked, and it appears your GW "study" (really it's a policy piece) is not peer-reviewed. It's self-published. I skimmed the article and couldn't find any analysis indicating that private insurance has equal or more fraud than medicare/medicaid.
Again, you serve up a hack-piece. |
08-20-2009, 11:26 AM | #15 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
$6 billion to get self-funded non-profit medical coops in all 50 states? That is cheap.
You mention the Washington co-op, but don't mention the Minnesota one. Is this another case of you cherry-picking? Aren't you upset about year to year increases in Medicare and Medicaid spending? Here is a govt. report showing that Medicaid costs are expected to increase faster than overall healthcare inflation in the next 10 years. Quote:
The idea that a public plan won't have rampant costs is an illusion. And btw, anytime the govt. can step in and bail out an insurance company (i.e. the public option), that is not a level playing field (which Obama has promised). |
|
08-20-2009, 03:34 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
08-20-2009, 03:39 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
And of course I am concerned about rising premiums in Medicare and Medicaid. Fortuntately, those are far lower than rising premiums in the private sector (which increased by 119% over the last decade). The CBO estimates costs of employer-based care will increase by 100% over the next decade (Congressional Budget Office, “Taxes and Health Insurance,” February 29, 2008). |
|
08-20-2009, 04:43 PM | #18 | ||
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Why do you assume that a government plan works in all states? Quote:
I have read and will try to locate that in 1964 government estimated 1984 Medicare costs to be $4 Billion when in fact it was $400 Billion. Do you really believe any government auditor has one iota of credibility in the prediction department when it comes to costs? Do you really want us to believe a government auditor instructed to skew costs in favor of government programs won't just cook the numbers?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
||
08-20-2009, 06:17 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
As for a co-op not functioning properly in all 50 states, I assume it won't because a co-op needs a critical mass to be successful, and it isn't at all clear how they will reach that critical mass in many of the smaller states (in Washington, the co-op I mentioned before took over 60 years to get to 600,000 enrollees, and Washington is much larger than many of the other states). The CBO isn't biased. Feel free to review what the CBO is (a non-partisan entity) as well as their releases of this year (which have gone heavily against Democrats multiple times). |
|
08-20-2009, 08:14 PM | #20 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
CBO made the $396 Billion for the original Medicare estimate. Their predictions are worthless dung.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|