15 Jul 11
I have a question for those who like the Ryan idea of changing Medicare over to subsidizing health insurance for seniors:
Is there any guarantee that the amount of money the government is pay is going to be able to buy a decent policy?
If not, then how do you expect those who don't have the extra bucks to supplement the government's voucher to get coverage?
Just wondering.
15 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarWell, those are the $64,000 questions, aren't they? The whole thing would be a give-away to the private insurance empires on a scale that would make the give-away that's occurred on Obama's watch pale by comparison. With the sudden infusion of millions of highly needy customers into the insurance pools, the premiums of everyone, young and old, would skyrocket. Ryan's voucher plan ("Here's a 15%-off coupon for ya, gramps" ), if put into effect, would be an act of barbarism the likes of which the Western world hasn't witnessed in over half a century.
I have a question for those who like the Ryan idea of changing Medicare over to subsidizing health insurance for seniors:
Is there any guarantee that the amount of money the government is pay is going to be able to buy a decent policy?
If not, then how do you expect those who don't have the extra bucks to supplement the government's voucher to get coverage?
Just wondering.
15 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarOn the contrary, there's a guarantee it's not. It's supposed to cover 75% the average cost, which means they pay the other 25% (IF THEY CAN). If they can't then they can't get covered.
I have a question for those who like the Ryan idea of changing Medicare over to subsidizing health insurance for seniors:
Is there any guarantee that the amount of money the government is pay is going to be able to buy a decent policy?
If not, then how do you expect those who don't have the extra bucks to supplement the government's voucher to get coverage?
Just wondering.
Also, the amount of the subsidy only goes up with the rate of inflation. Healthcare costs have historically outpaced inflation. This means it covers less and less over time.
15 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastYep, the Republicans are big in funneling government money into the medical private sector. Look at what GW did for the pharmaceutical companies with his expansion of Social Security perscription drugs entitlement.
Well, those are the $64,000 questions, aren't they? The whole thing would be a give-away to the private insurance empires on a scale that would make the give-away that's occurred on Obama's watch pale by comparison. With the sudden infusion of millions of highly needy customers into the insurance pools, the premiums of everyone, young and old, would skyr ...[text shortened]... barbarism the likes of which the Western world hasn't witnessed in over half a century.
15 Jul 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper75% coverage at today's rates and with inflation rates based on general inflation instead of insurance rate inflation. Nice.
On the contrary, there's a guarantee it's not. It's supposed to cover 75% the average cost, which means they pay the other 25% (IF THEY CAN). If they can't then they can't get covered.
Also, the amount of the subsidy only goes up with the rate of inflation. Healthcare costs have historically outpaced inflation. This means it covers less and less over time.
Even if it was tied to insurance inflation rates, what happens if the insurance rates go up 400%? That means that seniors would be stuck with paying for today's insurance rates at full price.
Nice, but I suppose we all know that insurance companies aren't going to raise their rates simply because they can.
15 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastThe faster you feed Medical field and the Insurance companies the more things will cost. They are a two headed monster that feed on the rest of us.
That could happen. The more you feed the insurance companies the faster they'll jack up their rates. You can take that to the bank.
You need insurance because medical prices are so high.
Medical prices can be high because insurance will pay for it.
They work together and the government simply wants to give them more.
15 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarWhat you say is true, I believe. This is why life-or-death commodities such as medical care cannot be handed over to market forces. They need to be strictly controlled by government at the very least, and the only airtight way to do it is with "socialized medicine" (i.e. a single-payer system). I also submit that the government should construct its own pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities to create the basic drugs that the private companies are not making in sufficient quantities -- because it's a growing crisis that's probably already costing lives at this point. The pharmaceutical companies are largely only interested in making the "hot" designer drugs they hold exclusive rights to and turn the fattest profits, and only grudgingly make the cheaper non-proprietary drugs.
The faster you feed Medical field and the Insurance companies the more things will cost. They are a two headed monster that feed on the rest of us.
You need insurance because medical prices are so high.
Medical prices can be high because insurance will pay for it.
They work together and the government simply wants to give them more.
15 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastWrong answer. If the government gets to control the life or death commodities then you are simply trading the market forces for the government. Right now I'd say that the two groups are pretty much the same thing.
What you say is true, I believe. This is why life-or-death commodities such as medical care cannot be handed over to market forces. They need to be strictly controlled by government at the very least, and the only airtight way to do it is with "socialized medicine" (i.e. a single-payer system). I also submit that the government should construct its own ...[text shortened]... and turn the fattest profits, and only grudgingly make the cheaper non-proprietary drugs.
No, the true solution is to get rid of the monopoly. No more pre-paid medical programs for the fortunate few. Only allow for catastrophic policies and force people to pay for their medical bills the old fashioned way, pay it directly to the doctors.
True, doctors may have to start taking barter again and they may not be able to make as much money, but it is the only way to bring down medical costs. Medical costs is the real problem here.
For this thread, I'm hoping some of the conservatives who like Ryan's idea will chime in and admit that they simply want to make it so that the poor can't get service. If they do get service, then they can only get very limited policies.
15 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarSo your "free market" solution is to outlaw insurance?
Wrong answer. If the government gets to control the life or death commodities then you are simply trading the market forces for the government. Right now I'd say that the two groups are pretty much the same thing.
No, the true solution is to get rid of the monopoly. No more pre-paid medical programs for the fortunate few. Only allow for catastrophic po ...[text shortened]... or can't get service. If they do get service, then they can only get very limited policies.
15 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarIn other words you don't believe that government can, even in theory, represent the interests of the people. In other words you don't believe in democracy in the least, and think the Constitution is some kind of mockery. You know what? You've got the answer wrong. This is what I get trying to meet the likes of you halfway. Won't happen again.
Wrong answer. If the government gets to control the life or death commodities then you are simply trading the market forces for the government. Right now I'd say that the two groups are pretty much the same thing.
