.. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but > "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure:
"By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
"We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 percent below the average level for private plans but that the public plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote."
So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right?
> On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > > without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > > executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > > typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but > > "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
> > But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure:
> "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that > offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent
well no **** costs would be lower if you're just going to rip physicians off.....
I dont think this public option has a chance in hell of passing, but if it does(and eventually edges out private insurers), then boutique medicine, which is already gaining traction, will explode.....just massively explode.
I already know several physicians who just do boutique medicine.....but if we have basically a government takeover from private insurers....well...heh....get used to boutique medicine.
> plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, > according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid > Services.
> "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 > percent below the average level for private plans but that the public > plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a > result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote."
> So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right?
On Nov 4, 6:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > typical private insurance plan
the average private insurance plan(thats good) now costs about 9-10k or so for a family of say...3-4 people. Obvuously in most cases 70% or so of this(or more in many cases, like mine) is picked up by the employer.
There is no "magic bullet" to this public option garbage. The govt is going to want to slash physician and hospital reimbursement rates about 30% from private insurers(ie 3k gone), subsidize it another 3-4k, and so obviously since joe blow only has to pay 3k a year(after the 3k the govt steals from doctors and the 304k the govt steals from me and you to subsidize it) it seems "cheaper"........
it's all a bunch of nonsense.
meanwhile people like you(who has affordable good private insurance) will be crowded out for the best services and the best physicians because they're just going to do boutique medicine.....ie charge a 3000 dollar yearly fee to be eligible to be seen in their practice.
> mianderson wrote: > meanwhile people like you(who has affordable good private insurance) > will be crowded out for the best services and the best physicians > because they're just going to do boutique medicine.....ie charge a > 3000 dollar yearly fee to be eligible to be seen in their practice.
I expect that "health care reform" of the kind obama is thinking of will result in my (a) paying higher prices for the same care, (b) paying the same price for worse care (particularly as it relates to waiting times and the like), or (c) paying higher prices for worse care.
Not a good outcome in the bunch.
-- In our age it is not sex that raises its ugly head, but love.
Ben Stewart wrote: > On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that >> without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat >> executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the >> typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but >> "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
>> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure:
> "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that > offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private > plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, > according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid > Services.
> "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 > percent below the average level for private plans but that the public > plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a > result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote."
> So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right?
> You are just so simple sometimes.
er, the CBO report doesn't say that. And anyone with maybe a 4th grade or higher reading-comp can see that i commented on what the CBO report says, not any other report.
-- I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis that had crash-landed from a burning star onto American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis had left the building.
On Nov 4, 6:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but > "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure:
> Ben Stewart wrote: > > On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > >> without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > >> executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > >> typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but > >> "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
> >> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure:
> > "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that > > offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private > > plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, > > according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid > > Services.
> > "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 > > percent below the average level for private plans but that the public > > plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a > > result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote."
> > So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right?
> > You are just so simple sometimes.
> er, the CBO report doesn't say that. And anyone with maybe a 4th grade > or higher reading-comp can see that i commented on what the CBO report > says, not any other report.
I know what it said. Those quotes also came directly from the CBO's website. They must have felt it was important to paint a complete picture instead of just the cherry-picked variety you prefer.
So are you saying that the CBO is publishing information on its own website that may be inaccurate?
For Christ's sake Jaros -- make up your frickin' mind.
> On Nov 4, 11:35 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > Ben Stewart wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > >> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > > >> without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > > >> executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > > >> typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but > > >> "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
> > >> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure:
> > > "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that > > > offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private > > > plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, > > > according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid > > > Services.
> > > "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 > > > percent below the average level for private plans but that the public > > > plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a > > > result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote."
> > > So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right?
> > > You are just so simple sometimes.
> > er, the CBO report doesn't say that. And anyone with maybe a 4th grade > > or higher reading-comp can see that i commented on what the CBO report > > says, not any other report.
> I know what it said. Those quotes also came directly from the CBO's > website.
StephenJ wrote: > On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 11:35 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>> Ben Stewart wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that >>>>> without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat >>>>> executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the >>>>> typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but >>>>> "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits. >>>>> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure: >>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/en... >>>> Wow. It also says: >>>> "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that >>>> offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private >>>> plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, >>>> according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid >>>> Services. >>>> "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 >>>> percent below the average level for private plans but that the public >>>> plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a >>>> result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote." >>>> So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right? >>>> You are just so simple sometimes. >>> er, the CBO report doesn't say that. And anyone with maybe a 4th grade >>> or higher reading-comp can see that i commented on what the CBO report >>> says, not any other report. >> I know what it said. Those quotes also came directly from the CBO's >> website.
> Link?
lol
-- .. unless her great neighbors are prosperous and orderly, Poland is an economic impossibility with no industry but Jew-baiting.
> StephenJ wrote: > > On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 11:35 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >>> Ben Stewart wrote: > >>>> On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > >>>>> without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > >>>>> executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > >>>>> typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but > >>>>> "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits. > >>>>> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure: > >>>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/en... > >>>> Wow. It also says: > >>>> "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that > >>>> offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private > >>>> plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, > >>>> according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid > >>>> Services. > >>>> "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 > >>>> percent below the average level for private plans but that the public > >>>> plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a > >>>> result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote." > >>>> So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right? > >>>> You are just so simple sometimes. > >>> er, the CBO report doesn't say that. And anyone with maybe a 4th grade > >>> or higher reading-comp can see that i commented on what the CBO report > >>> says, not any other report. > >> I know what it said. Those quotes also came directly from the CBO's > >> website.
> > Link?
> lol
Oh sorry... did I say CBO? I meant CBS. C......B......S......... chose to include a link to the study which includes information that you chose to ignore. I guess I thought we were playing the "lets ignore the facts we don't like" game.
Anyway...Since you already established that the CBS site must be reliable (because after all -- that's was the link you posted)... Here's the link they included with information that probably will be rejected by you because it won't suit your pre-conceived notions.
Ben Stewart wrote: > On Nov 6, 3:46 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> StephenJ wrote: >>> On Nov 5, 11:14 am, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 11:35 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>> Ben Stewart wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that >>>>>>> without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat >>>>>>> executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the >>>>>>> typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but >>>>>>> "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits. >>>>>>> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure: >>>>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/en... >>>>>> Wow. It also says: >>>>>> "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that >>>>>> offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private >>>>>> plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, >>>>>> according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid >>>>>> Services. >>>>>> "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 >>>>>> percent below the average level for private plans but that the public >>>>>> plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a >>>>>> result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote." >>>>>> So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right? >>>>>> You are just so simple sometimes. >>>>> er, the CBO report doesn't say that. And anyone with maybe a 4th grade >>>>> or higher reading-comp can see that i commented on what the CBO report >>>>> says, not any other report. >>>> I know what it said. Those quotes also came directly from the CBO's >>>> website. >>> Link? >> lol
> Oh sorry... did I say CBO? I meant CBS.
Well that isn't the C-B-O now is it? Which is what i said.
The other study mentioned in the CBS news report is an actuarial report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services, their Medicare division, and they just might have an interest in a public option, since they would likely be involved in it and thus become more powerful, have their budget boosted, etc.
The CBO, by contrast, is probably as unbiased as washington gets.
-- "I admit that there are good white men, but they bear no proportion to the bad. The bad must be strongest, for they rule. They enslave those not of their color. There is no faith to be placed in their words."
> On Nov 4, 7:52 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > > > without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > > > executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > > > typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but > > > "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
> > > But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure:
> > "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that > > offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent
> well no **** costs would be lower if you're just going to rip > physicians off.....
> I dont think this public option has a chance in hell of passing, but > if it does(and eventually edges out private insurers), then boutique > medicine, which is already gaining traction, will explode.....just > massively explode.
> I already know several physicians who just do boutique > medicine.....but if we have basically a government takeover from > private insurers....well...heh....get used to boutique medicine.
Or they might simply pool together and setup off shore medical facilities to do the medical jobs U.S. doctors won't be able to afford to provide. Then we'll hear the same old "people should have to mortgage their life savings to get that life saving treatment" in the Bahamas.
> On Nov 4, 11:35 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > Ben Stewart wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > >> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that > > >> without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat > > >> executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the > > >> typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but > > >> "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits.
> > >> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure:
> > > "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that > > > offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private > > > plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, > > > according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid > > > Services.
> > > "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 > > > percent below the average level for private plans but that the public > > > plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a > > > result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote."
> > > So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right?
> > > You are just so simple sometimes.
> > er, the CBO report doesn't say that. And anyone with maybe a 4th grade > > or higher reading-comp can see that i commented on what the CBO report > > says, not any other report.
> I know what it said. Those quotes also came directly from the CBO's > website. They must have felt it was important to paint a complete > picture instead of just the cherry-picked variety you prefer.
> So are you saying that the CBO is publishing information on its own > website that may be inaccurate?
> For Christ's sake Jaros -- make up your frickin' mind.
Just curious, what is the CBOs record at predicting the future costs of large government programs? For instance, how did they score Medicare when it was first introduced?
lein wrote: > On Nov 5, 9:14 am, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 11:35 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>> Ben Stewart wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> .. Funny, but i've been told by all the socialists around here that >>>>> without the "profit motive" and the "excessive pay for fat-cat >>>>> executives", a public option would charge much lower rates than the >>>>> typical private insurance plan, which after all does nothing but >>>>> "write checks" and collect monopoly-profits. >>>>> But the CBO seems to think otherwise. Go figure: >>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/en... >>>> Wow. It also says: >>>> "By contrast, premiums for a "robust" public option -- one that >>>> offered Medicare rates plus 5 percent -- would be cheaper than private >>>> plans on the exchange, even taking "adverse selection" into account, >>>> according to a recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid >>>> Services. >>>> "We estimate that the public plan would have costs that were 18 >>>> percent below the average level for private plans but that the public >>>> plan premiums would be roughly 11 percent lower than private as a >>>> result of antiselection enrollees," the CMS wrote." >>>> So I guess you'd be in favor of a robust public option, right? >>>> You are just so simple sometimes. >>> er, the CBO report doesn't say that. And anyone with maybe a 4th grade >>> or higher reading-comp can see that i commented on what the CBO report >>> says, not any other report. >> I know what it said. Those quotes also came directly from the CBO's >> website. They must have felt it was important to paint a complete >> picture instead of just the cherry-picked variety you prefer.
>> So are you saying that the CBO is publishing information on its own >> website that may be inaccurate?
>> For Christ's sake Jaros -- make up your frickin' mind.
> Just curious, what is the CBOs record at predicting the future costs > of large government programs? For instance, how did they score > Medicare when it was first introduced?
We're beyond that. He's conceded that he was dead wrong about what the CBO said.
-- Not to believe in the Devil is a French idea, a frivolous idea.
|
