46.3 million Americans without health insurance

Free Thinker · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from Maverickz:

Yes it costs money and a lot of it. The bottom line of it all is there are fundamentally only 3 ways to lower the total cost of health care. First is to reduce the cost of the care itself (my suggestions above). Second reduce the amount of health care the people in the system need (rationing). Third, is to reduce the number of people in the system(either denial of coverage or "death panels").

Since Obama's plan does not directly reduce what health care costs as my ideas do, how does he plan on increasing the number of people in the system by 12-40million (depending on who's numbers you believe) and yet actually save any money? The answer is there will HAVE to be rationing....no way around it. You cannot increase the number of people needing health care while reducing costs without it.

paper pushing and insurance company overhead adds 30% to the system. defensive medicine probably at least 10% more. how about we start there?

Maverickz · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from vhehn:

paper pushing and insurance company overhead adds 30% to the system. defensive medicine probably at least 10% more. how about we start there?

If you have proof of that I'd like to see it. In general insurance companies get LOWER prices than people without insurance. The bigger the insurance company the cheaper the price...they basically negotiate "bulk" pricing that individuals can't. I don't see how that ADDS 30% to total cost.

Free Thinker · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from Maverickz:

If you have proof of that I'd like to see it. In general insurance companies get LOWER prices than people without insurance. The bigger the insurance company the cheaper the price...they basically negotiate "bulk" pricing that individuals can't. I don't see how that ADDS 30% to total cost.

The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage.

The administrative structure of the U.S. health care system consumes a large share of health spending. In 1999, administrative spending consumed at least 31.0 percent of health spending, according to a report in today's New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8800.php

Mnphats · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from vhehn:

paper pushing and insurance company overhead adds 30% to the system. defensive medicine probably at least 10% more. how about we start there?

And what would the government workers overhead be under a single payer plan? With their guaranteed pensions and the like. I think it safe to say private insurance companies would do a much better job managing their overhead than that of the government, because the HAVE to.

Free Thinker · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from Mnphats:

And what would the government workers overhead be under a single payer plan? With their guaranteed pensions and the like. I think it safe to say private insurance companies would do a much better job managing their overhead than that of the government, because the HAVE to.

medicare has a 3% overhead cost.

Mnphats · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from vhehn:

medicare has a 3% overhead cost.

LOL sure it is.

Edit: That 3% doesn't include many costs associated with medicare overhead. Such as taxes, sales commisions, profits, legal fees and more that I am missing off the cuff.

Maverickz · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from vhehn:

Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage.

Assuming these numbers are accurate, you are saying that $578/month/person is "more than needed"?

Also what about the people working for private insurance companies now? They would become unemployed and added to that number of people needing government health care which would further reduce the "savings".

All of that still hinges on the belief that the US federal government would actually be able to run this efficiently....ROFL.

tradefreak · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from S2007S:

yep and as the president said yesterday about 14,000 people a day lose health insurance. The costs continue to sky rocket, I know a family where they pay approx $2000 a month for health insurance. I have shopped it around for just myself and costs are as high as $600-$700 a month.

Health care makes up 1/6 of the GDP, without any plan in place its going to SOAR!!!!!

u can get unicare or bluecross in Texas for a family of 4 for $240 a month with 1K deductible - that's what i pay...and when i was single it was under $100.00 a month - u can't go to the doc everytime you get a cough, but if u get hit by a mack truck your covered

piezoe · Sep 10, 2009

Quote from skylr33:

When you take out the number of illegal immigrants, and younger, healthier people that simply choose not to purchase insurance, the number is more around 14-15 million. It's comical how Obama and the douche bag Democrats love to inflate the numbers. lol They make sound like 46 million people are so desperate for insurance that they will all die tomorrow if we don't do something. Again, the "true" number of people that are in dire need of coverage is 14-15 million. The other 30 million simply choose not to buy it, or are illegals.
So, does the entire system need to be overhauled for 14-15 million people? That's what the dictator-in-chief thinks.

You've missed the point entirely. The reason medical delivery in the US must be overhauled is not because there are people without insurance, it's because the current rate of medical care cost increases cannot be sustained! Bringing more people under insurance coverage is just one of the many necessary changes that is needed to control future costs and keep care affordable for the maximum number of people.

The current "system" is unsustainable. There is no choice but to change it drastically and the sooner the better. Obama understands this. You do not.

One can argue that the proposed changes are not the right ones, but to argue that no, or very little, change is needed suggests you are completely out of touch with reality.

piezoe · Sep 10, 2009

Pab(s)t, you never cease to amaze with your ad hominen arguments -- short on logic and completely missing the point.

One would hope you are a much better trader than Devil's advocate.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Let me be Devil's advocate.

1. Why don't you self insure? I presume because you don't want the risk, eh? Well what makes you think someone else wants the risk of you getting cancer and costing them a million dollars?

2. It's funny but few Leftist's squak about the spiraling cost of public education. I pesume your $1200 a month insurance premium includes a couple or more children. Most public school systems spend a thousand a month educating your kids. What SHOULD cost more? I'd rather produce education-little variance-for a grand a month than assume open ended liability for for that same thou.

3. As a society have we ever pondered that compared to the cost of housing, perhaps insurance is too cheap? Few us question a dank, city apartment costing $1000 or more a month yet we belch at our health premium costing half that. Many of us in Big Cities spend more on parking than health insurance! I say let the feee market derived value of insurance premiums CROWD OUT other expenditures. Hell, we're talking about LIFE. Should that not be our biggest expense?