Why Healthcare costs so much: Explained in one cartoon

Uh-huh. So that would mean the excellent healthcare you were receiving was partially a byproduct of private sector medicine.

You're just one person. Anecdotal evidence ain't conclusive.

 

Here's some of that excellent and efficient government healthcare for ya!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172_4.html

 

private sector education, yes, although many had military scholarships.

I venture to say that most veterans will say that the healthcare they received while in uniform was excellent.

 

Then what are doctors refusing to take new Medicare patients?http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8177988/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?_r=1

http://www.timesnews.net/article/9024056/more-doctors-refusing-new-medicare-patients
There is very little that the government does better than the private sector. And with health insurance, it's mostly because of government regulations.

 

Good thing many of the physicians in the military had private sector experience or education. Not sure why some people want to do away with that.

 

Yes. The leading experts on government healthcare policies don't know what they're talking about.

 

It's a man made system. It's going to be imperfect. But the numbers don't lie. Government healthcare systems are more efficient and cost effective than private ones.

 

regardless of where they were educated, military doctors, working for a government run health care system, provide excellent care... which proves that the government CAN run a healthcare system.

 

Our constitution does not allow for single payer. nice try. If you want it, amend it then.

 

which section of the constitution prohibits it?

 

Well, if you knew anything about the constitution, it lists the powers of government. Anything not listed the government cannot do.

So unless you can show me where in the 18 enumerated powers where it says healthcare...than it can't be done.

 

That is not how legal experts interpret the constitution.

 

Yes they do. The constitution is what it says. You don't need to be a legal expert to understand it.

 

General Welfare clause. Your interpretation of the constitution is not that of legal experts. If it was Social Security, Medicare and essentially the entire welfare system would be unconstitutional. But all of these programs have been taken to court. And all of them have been ruled constitutional under the general welfare clause. Leaving your interpretation nothing more than fantasy.

 

No it isn't. Legal experts understand that this clearly falls under the same clause other welfare programs do. General Welfare. Your interpretation is right wing fantasy. It's not real. And it's certainly not the interpretation of the people who decide what is and isn't constitutional.

 

No it really doesn't.

Your opinion can't break the argument. The reason their are 18 enumerated powers is because the founders did not want the government total control and hence created the 10th amendment so that anything not listed in the document is left up to the states and the people.

Like I said earlier, that is the reason there is an amendment process so that if people like yourself wanted to make changes to the document, you can but it has to be ratified by the states.

So, if you think single payer is the way to go, get out there and and lobby and try to get it done, and if not than that is the end.

 

General Welfare has already been ruled to allow this. There is nothing in a single payer system that is not in Medicare. There is no need for an amendment. Your input on this is not only wrong but it's just silly. If they ruled this unconstitutional there is no grounds on they could lay to keep social security constitutional. And that's already been ruled constitutional.

 

No it hasn't. Don't you know anything?

The SC is just about starting to review this law. So no, you are wrong.

 

This law? We're talking about Single payer healthcare here. Not Obamacare.

Obamacare is under question because of the individual mandate.

Single Payer does nothing that medicare doesn't already do. And since Medicare has already been brought to court and already been approved by SCOTUS under the general welfare clause there is absolutely 0 constitutional grounds to challenge single payer on.

 

It doesn't matter. Once this is struck down, there will not be a single payer.

 

I just have one question for you how do you square these two quotes in bold. In the first quote you say we need to have single payer to increase "efficiency and quality" then in your very next post you say that drug companies needn't be taken over by the state because "Nothing inspires better than free market competition."

So which is better, the state or the free market?

 

Have you taken the time to think critically about the article you posted?
Lets look at some of its claims:

Of course government spending rose less, congress can decide how much to reimburse doctors, insurance companies don't have this power. Of course government does this all the time, and what are the consequences of deciding to reimburse less? More and more doctors are dropping Medicare and Medicaid people. If it is decreasing availability of its service to customers is it really more efficient?

This higher costs can be attributed much to government regulations. Requiring all insurance to cover prenatal care, even if a single man buys it. Requiring insurance to cover all preventative care for free. Some states require insurance to cover such things as acupuncture and marriage counseling. Demanding that kids can stay on it till twenty six, and so on. Government is driving up the cost of insurance.

Medicare is care for the elderly, they are the most expensive group to cover, requiring the most expensive care and the most frequent. So of course their administrative costs are going to be less as a percentage of total cost. This is a given. Also I am willing to bet not all costs related to administrative costs are considered as its easy to hide bureaucratic costs in other agencies and such. Also it says that Medicare fraud and abuse controls are included in administrative costs, but what about the costs of fraud? http://www.mygovcost.org/2011/03/03/medicare-fraud-48-billion-at-a-minimum/

Doubt there is efficiency when they cant even identify an estimate of the degree of improper payments.

So the governments, federal and state, have so many and such strict regulations regarding insurance that in many areas there are only a few providers, thus making it harder for new insurers to enter the market and stimulate price competition, and somehow this is the fault of private insurance? Sounds once again like government forcing prices higher through asinine rules.

Government has the system rigged so a private insurance market cannot function properly. It can set the rules for how much its willing to pay for something, many times below cost for a hospital. To make up for this private insurers have to pay more. If government takes over all healthcare it cannot continue to pay under cost as their is no place else to charge to overcompensate. So to keep costs down they have to ration care.

 

Funny how working people think the Boss is unnecessary so stop paying him a profit if the business is making money.


They forget that 4 out of 5 small businesses fail within the first 5years.
So, if once a small business man succeeds, out law profit so none of themmake a living for themselves, but just for the employees who think the boss does do anything.

It is really low class to believe that corporations pay millions of dollars to a Boss when any one could do the job just as well, or worse, a Boss isn't even necessary.

Insurance providers must keep most of the customers happy while paying the employees enough to get the best man possible for the longest time at the lowest acceptable price negotiated.

Government Health Insurance doesn't have to keep you happy while making sure the prices paid fit the Federal budget without raisingtaxes for as long as possible.

 

Actually, here is why health care costs have been increasing and why they will continue to increase beyond all bounds. There is no way a system this complex and this convoluted can ever produce a modicum of efficiency and quality.

Obamacare is an abomination. It is loaded down with a huge new bureaucracy and this is one reason it is so much more expensive than private policies. What you don't pay in additional costs for the new government policies you pay in much higher taxes to subsidize these costs for millions of non-working and low-income Americans. The Democrats’ takeover of health care creates a byzantine network of 159 new federal programs and bureaucracies to make decisions that should be between just the patient and their doctor.

It should concern everyone that at the center of this regulatory web is the new CMS chief, Donald Berwick, who has championed rationing and European socialized medicine. Americans were rightly outraged that this big government bill was rushed through Congress before anyone read or fully understood the bill’s consequences. Republicans and libertarians will fight to repeal this reckless takeover and to ensure health care freedom to American families.”

 

thanks but NO THANKS. Stay out of my life, my life and health decisions and LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE.