All your bank accounts are belong to us!
- Thread starter Sir_Brizz
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I posted in the RO-me thread
funkblast
I posted in the RO-me thread
and all I got was
a pink username!
I'm looking forward to seeing further posts with such grand content and relevance from you.
Guess this one came from the right as well.
That's just as bad. I've said this before Brizz.
Right back at ya. Oh sorry Co2 is warming the atmosphere so proof isn't needed. Sorry Zxan.
what I find so amazing is that even if you're for single payer, you don't mind the complete lies coming from Obama et al. As long as you get what you get what you want, it doesn't matter how it gets done and how they're trying to flat out lie to everyone.
oh yea, I know bush is evil. dont bother
oh yea, I know bush is evil. dont bother
Right back at ya. Oh sorry Co2 is warming the atmosphere so proof isn't needed. Sorry Zxan.
Don't get me started on that one. There is no debate anymore about GCC, and we all know what the facts are.
Edit: Also, other than this post, I will not derail the topic of this thread.
Last edited:
Anyone that says there's not Global Climate Change is not a very good student of geological history. It has only been changing since the earth existed.
Because I was talking about Global Climate Change, right.
I was clearly talking about the assumption of yours and people like you that CO2 is warming the planet. That is NOT just Global Climate Change.
:tup:
Not directed at you, but some people on the left blindly assume that nobody has ever compared a President with Hitler or made a mock picture of him as the Joker. All of these things were done to Bush, too
Yeah, they have always done that. Like that time they killed those kids at Kent State. The right hates change.
You have a potential of 305M Americans (legal/illegal). Health care spending is estimated to be around $2.3T this year.47M do not allegedly have insurance. That leaves 257M. Out of those, you have about 80M who are covered under Gov't plans of some type. That costs will allegedly be about $1.04T for 2009. This comes to about $13K per capita. The remaining 178M are privately covered and those costs will be about $1.26T this year. That comes to about $7078.65 per capita.
My thinking here is that the disparity in costs of per capita care between private and public care. The fact that 45% of the costs for health care in is spent on public care for 26.2% of the country is rather telling when you compare that to 55% of the costs covering 58.2% of the country (and possibly more if you add in a portion of those who do not have coverage).
Considering that the 55% of costs covers the privately insured 58% of the population, the why can't the Government take the 45% of next year's health care spending it and cover the 15.4% that allegedly need coverage without incurring any additional burden on taxpayers?
On another forum, someone argued that Government health care is operated on a 2-3 percent overhead. He also debated that insurance providers operate at a much higher rate of overhead, which may be true (the claim is 10-30% overhead). If all this is true, then one can extrapolate that Government overhead may be low but waste is excessive due to possible lack of proper oversight within Government organizations. Also, seeing how most doctors report that Medicare consistently pays about 75-80 percent of what private insurers pay, one has to wonder why public care costs the taxpayer so much per covered recipient.
I'd like to hear from those who receive Government coverage under programs such as Medicare. I'd like to know if they truly like the care they receive and whether or not their out-of-pocket costs have increased as dramatically as those in the private sector.
My thinking here is that the disparity in costs of per capita care between private and public care. The fact that 45% of the costs for health care in is spent on public care for 26.2% of the country is rather telling when you compare that to 55% of the costs covering 58.2% of the country (and possibly more if you add in a portion of those who do not have coverage).
Considering that the 55% of costs covers the privately insured 58% of the population, the why can't the Government take the 45% of next year's health care spending it and cover the 15.4% that allegedly need coverage without incurring any additional burden on taxpayers?
On another forum, someone argued that Government health care is operated on a 2-3 percent overhead. He also debated that insurance providers operate at a much higher rate of overhead, which may be true (the claim is 10-30% overhead). If all this is true, then one can extrapolate that Government overhead may be low but waste is excessive due to possible lack of proper oversight within Government organizations. Also, seeing how most doctors report that Medicare consistently pays about 75-80 percent of what private insurers pay, one has to wonder why public care costs the taxpayer so much per covered recipient.
I'd like to hear from those who receive Government coverage under programs such as Medicare. I'd like to know if they truly like the care they receive and whether or not their out-of-pocket costs have increased as dramatically as those in the private sector.
Crotale, your math is interesting and all, but government workers are covered by private health care plans, not medicare, which is a completely different system. These (government paid for, private) plans are also very generous as me and my wife are finding now that she is working at a private company now and the health plan is mucho crappier.
~Jason
~Jason
Yes, I know that not all public plans are Medicare. I was asking mostly about how folks feel about their Medicare, since that is a model of how good or bad this Government care might or might not be. I know how good many Government plans are, such as the coverage given to the military. I cannot speak for other Government worker plans (many in state and local levels may be private plans), but the reason the military has such good coverage/care is because the personnel are not looked at as as people but as assets, more or less an investment that needs to be protected in order to maintain the organization's overall combat readiness.
I do know that many teachers here in Vegas, for example, have excellent health benefits (medical, optical, dental) and that is great. Believe it or not, many big corporations offer similar plans at a slightly higher cost. It mostly comes down to pooling, which is one thing the Obama Administration has discussed with the HIE initiative. Why do many businesses not join in to pools already established by most of your major medical insurance companies? It is due to local, state and federal rules that may prohibit a business from doing so.
Take for example, a small company of 200 employees that is scattered around the country in several states performing a federal contract. The only corporate office exists in San Diego, CA. The coverage offered to these employees has to be obtained and managed by a California based insurance provider, according to state law. On top of that, the federal contract dictates that these employees "fringe" benefits that include health coverage cannot be intermingled with the general budget of the company. And because it is a federal contract, there are fewer insurance providers willing to take on such a contract due to all the federal and state regulations, so that raises the cost health care when the company does find a provider. These types of issues not not isolated and while may not be a major issue, it shows that pooling does not work in all cases and that needs to be resolved.