http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564501,00.html?test=health

4 Month old boy, 17 pounds denied coverage.

Underwriters, the people who are in charge of assessing risk for insurance companies, have decided that baby Alex's pre-existing condition — obesityhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564501,00.html?test=health#) — makes him a high-risk patient and have denied him coverage.

And any company like it.

Read what this faggot says...
Dr. Doug Speedie, medical director at insurance company (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564501,00.html?test=health#) Rocky Mountain Health Plans, told KKCO-TV, it’s possible for a baby to be above the 95 percentile and still be healthy, and admitted the system is flawed.
He should have is MD license revoked. The whole insurance industry is flawed.

That's strange. Usually they wait until the insured is sick and dying to deny coverage. After all, even many high risk people might not get sick and net the company a profit.

But I'm glad you're coming around to our side and seeing why it's a horrible idea to allow private industries to control health care, and why we need a guaranteed public option.

As a side note, it's sad that obesity is already a recognized condition in 4-month-olds.

Normally insurance companies distribute risk.

We can go back at least 500 years.
Merchant of Venice, as an example. (Lord Jim, as a more recent example).

Ship owners paid into a pool to distribute the risk of loss of a ship at sea.
They made funny rules like The captain must go down with the ship before payout. Just to make sure that everything was done to possibly save the ship.

Distributed risk.

The same is true today with auto insurance. Car drivers pay into a pool just in case they are in an accident. The risk is minimal statistically speaking that an individual will be in an accident.

But healthcare is different. The odds of a person NOT needing healthcare is less than that of being in a car accident. In their lifetime, respectively.

It becomes no longer distributed risk, but distributed cost. And that is what health insurers do. They manage distributed cost primarily, managing risk helps manage the cost.

Here is where the proponents are failing in their persuasion.

1) Socialism. Socialism is bad. At least to those who are not actually Socialists. To those opposed to universal healthcare.

But Socialism definitionally speaking is the control, in our discussion by government, of the means of production.

Socialism is government controlled production.

But what do insurance companies produce? What?
Nothing. They(with certain exceptions) add no value to the product or service provided.

Keep your hands off of the production, and its not Socialism. All you are is a clearing house.

2) Health insurance is not healthcare.

MM and many others, including some posters here, make the argument in such a way that the providers and insurance companies are the same.

3) Rationing.

Universal healthcare is rationed. Well it is. And is an effective argument. Proponents of universal healthcare need to persuade people that healthcare is already rationed. It is.

In many cases, it is rationed by most insurance companies in what can only be described as criminal at most, fraud at the least.

3a) You need a bunch of PSAs or infomercials showing how insurance companies fcck the individual. 4 month old babies, little old ladies. Moms, dads, kids. Women with breast cancer, men with BPH.

4) Here is the hardest one. Can't fit on any bumper sticker.

The uninsured have not paid into the system, and therefore they should not get what they don't pay for.

Truth is, no one pays into the present system what they take out of it. It is either going to be way more than what they have paid into, or way less.

Die catastrophically, before you make it to the hospital is about the only time where you, in your life, are not going to access the system.

Get sick, you access it.
Get old, you access it.
Everyone accesses healthcare providers.

But remember it is not distributed risk now, it is distributed costs. The practices of the insurance companies with pre-existing conditions and rescission prove that. And as the medical director admits, it is systemically flawed because of it.

Insurance companies go a good job of distributing risk. But as we have seen recently, they have a horrible track record of distributing costs.

Doctors and nurses, and everyone else who provides a service in healthcare, really don't care who pays them, as long as you pay them for their work, service, and product. We have seen that. As long as you leave them alone. They are the product, the service. You have to convince them that you will leave them alone.

Doctors and nurses have no affinity for insurance companies(unless they work for one like the idiot up in the OP). I don't care who may pay check or where it comes from. You could pool all the money for healthcare ANYWHERE, and as long as healthcare workers got paid for their work, they would drop insurance companies like a red hot potato.

4a) And you have to get some marketing team to come up with a friendly name. Group pool. The Together Thing.

5) You need to make people aware of how much they already pay into the system. I produce enough service that my employer pays 15K for my health insurance. I chip in another 2K for MediCare.

You have got to assault any, "Well you are going to pay 4K more a year in taxes". "Its gonna cost you 5K more a year than you pay now." You have to attack that before it ever gains traction.

If I paid 10K more a year in taxes, and did not pay the 17K, I'm saving 7K a year. Duh!

Get some ****ing accurate pie charts, do the Ross Perot thing, or something.

6) You need to have smart people speak for you, rather than MM. Take the fcking microphone from him. Sit him in a room, have him spill all his rants to some smart people. Then have them digest it, then have smart people speak.

Look, the amount of actual healthcare is relatively fixed, at least fixed in the sense that it is gonna cost what it is gonna cost. Ya, maybe a lot of money could be saved from tort reform, and a little can be saved by reducing defensive medicine.



Honestly, I don't think I have yet to see a lab test which was not needed for one purpose or another.

Hell, I had a patient who came in August for IBS. Healthy individual otherwise. He thought he just needed to get is colon scoped. Doc orders a CT of the abdomen, a bunch of blood tests(which included antigens for Celiac Disease btw). I thought it was kinda overkill, at the time, the CT that is. Expensive test, lots of radiation for the patient, dye is hard on the kidneys. Come to find out that his right kidney had a cancer tumor 10cm by 7cm growing out of it. Had to take the whole kidney out in Sept. He's doing fine now.

The point is, the cost is gonna be the cost, for the actual service and products. And for those who can afford them now, they are the best service and products in the world.

What is broke, is how it is paid for. How the cost is distributed.

And insurance companies have proven they can't distribute costs effectively, or fairly.

Make that argument successfully, you will not only put them out of business, but put many of them in jail.

Laws are merely opinions, which are backed by force. Change the opinions, change the laws.\\



edit:
You know what you need, fcck Ross Perot. You need Steve Jobs. Have him sell it like an iPhone.

That's just a long-winded way of saying you agree with us (socialists, communists, pick your term) who believe that government controlled health care is the only way to go, due to the nature of health care and the nature of insurance companies.

If we convinced a die hard, capitalism-for-life libertarian, we can convince enough people to make a change.

6) You need to have smart people speak for you, rather than MM. Take the fcking microphone from him. Sit him in a room, have him spill all his rants to some smart people. Then have them digest it, then have smart people speak.Why? Most of the voters are not smart and are incapable of understanding this; most of those who are capable of understanding it only have a five second attention span and will never pay attention long enough; and the few remaining have already made up their mind.

It's far easier to show well-edited documentaries that appeal to people's instincts, and emotions, than to try to teach them the facts.

That's just a long-winded way of saying you agree with us (socialists, communists, pick your term) who believe that government controlled health care is the only way to go, due to the nature of health care and the nature of insurance companies.

If we convinced a die hard, capitalism-for-life libertarian, we can convince enough people to make a change.

You did not convince me of anything. Well, Tinsi can be blamed for my initial changes of opinion years ago.

I will not at all, ever agree that government controlled health care is ever going to be the way to go.

That is part of your problem, which is going to cause you to fail. Or caused you to fail.

Health care and how it is paid for are two separate things.

If you can't separate them in your own mind, how can you sell government paid healthcare.

Insurance companies are just middlemen. They produce nothing of value intrinsically. That is obvious to anyone, even a Libertarian, when you explain it properly.

They move money from the producers of that money, invest that money to turn a profit, then move the money to the producers of the real healthcare products and services.

They are money movers is all.

Show how badly they do that, leave healthcare alone, and you will win what you want.

Health care and how it is paid for are two separate things.And how are you supposed to get health care when you can't pay for it? :rolleyes:

Will you work for free? Will doctors? Drug companies? Medical equipment companies? I don't think any of you will.

So getting health care, and paying for it, become the same issue.

Right now the taxpayers pick up all that slack via EMTALA. But we can pay a lot less while getting a lot more, and that's why we need reform that doesn't involve private insurers.Show how badly they do that, leave healthcare alone, and you will win what you want.Wrong.

Because health care is an issue where the public interest is fundamentally at odds with the private interest.

Private insurers can NEVER be trusted to run a health care system fairly, unless they are so over-regulated that they might as well be a public entity (Switzerland, Singapore, etc.).

Either way, you come back to the same inevitable conclusion: health care MUST be a public function.

You did not convince me of anything. Well, Tinsi can be blamed for my initial changes of opinion years ago.

I will not at all, ever agree that government controlled health care is ever going to be the way to go.


Government provided healthcare is not entirely the same thing as government controlled healthcare (in the same way as managing risk and cost are not quite the same).

I actually happen to agree that government should not provide healthcare. Instead I believe government has an obligation to ensure that adequate healthcare is available to everybody regardless of their income. How that is achieved is of secondary importance. I certainly agree that insurance companies do not (any longer) provide much in the way of added benefit to the system, so it would probably be easiest and fairest to just pay everything out of taxes (but since that is the dirtiest of dirty words in the USA that obviously is not going to happen). Barring that I guess the second best option is that the government sets a minimum package of healthcare services and a maximum premium for the insurance that covers it, requiring the insurance companies to accept anybody who is paying the premiums and not allowing them to terminate coverage. For it to work the government probably has to supplement the premiums from tax money for those people with an income too low to be able to afford the premium. The disadvantage of this system is that it tends to accumulate the costs in the middle. (the poorest get their premium wholly or partially paid by the government, the richest can make separate deals, and the middle incomes are left to pay for the shortages. This can be guarded against but that requires more government intervention than the average American probably is comfortable with.)


Eri

I actually happen to agree that government should not provide healthcare.

So do you support privatizing all NHS hospitals?

I don't think even Thatcher went that far.

And how are you supposed to get health care when you can't pay for it? :rolleyes: You miss my point.

You are confused.

Will you work for free? Will doctors? Drug companies? Medical equipment companies? I don't think any of you will. Working without pay is slavery. Why should anyone be forced to work for free, that is immoral.

So getting health care, and paying for it, become the same issue. The HEALTH CARE, the services, the procedures, the care that you get is different than the paying for it.

Right now the taxpayers pick up all that slack via EMTALA. But we can pay a lot less while getting a lot more, and that's why we need reform that doesn't involve private insurers. Not just taxpayers, but businesses which pay for insurance. And their customers. The cost is all spread around.

But the cost of the actual service is a relatively unchangeable amount.
If you through a party, and pay for it out of your own pocket.
Or whether you charge a door fee of those who attend, what you bought for the party, and the actual costs involved are going to be the same.

It does not matter who pays for it. It, the real costs, will still cost the same.

Wrong.

Because health care is an issue where the public interest is fundamentally at odds with the private interest. Well, old people vote. They vote hard and effectively.
They have a vested interest.
They don't have to take off work to vote.

And, and, they believe they are entitled to a high level of care because they faithfully paid into the system for a very long time.

Where do you think all the townhallers and the teapartiers came from?
Over a million people marched on Washington.
The Million Man March had only a couple thousand, and they made movies about it.


Private insurers can NEVER be trusted to run a health care system fairly, unless they are so over-regulated that they might as well be a public entity (Switzerland, Singapore, etc.). Insurers DON'T run health care or the health care system.

What they do, do, is have enough extra money taken from premiums to influence your Congress and Senate to protect their interests.

Either way, you come back to the same inevitable conclusion: health care MUST be a public function. Nope. Wrong.

Health care MUST be a private function. How it is paid for can be public for all I care.

I won't work for the government.

I will find another job first. And I am not the only one.

You need to separate in your mind the service, and how it is paid for. They are not the same entities, no matter how you are confused that they are the same, or if not confused yourself, how much you want to confuse the two for others.

When I buy gas, the Quick Mart don't care if it is cash, coins, credit or ATM. They don't care where the money comes from. They just want to get paid for their service. And I just want the gas, I don't care particularly over how I pay. But I don't pay by ATM if they tack on a service fee for the deal.

The money comes out of a pool of money that I have. And it does not matter which paycheck the money spent came from particularly. I don't care and the gas station doesn't care, the cashier or owner doesn't care. But I still get the product I want, and its paid for.

The companies which you lump together as 'health care' are all different companies and industries.
Pharmaceutical companies are more like companies that make weed killer than a hospital.
Medical Device companies are more like companies that make bicycle parts than a hospital.
Insurance companies are more like the record companies than a hospital.

Those who are doctor and those who are nurses are very separate entities. I know that you as a layperson think they are part of the same system. They are not. Mostly so in hospitals. I don't work for a doctor, any doctor, as a nurse. They are not my boss, and they can't order me to do something that I don't want to do. If I want to do something that needs to be done(outside of nursing scope), I do need to get a doctors order. But that is no different than being a knowledgeable layperson, knowing that I need a particular med, asking the doc for it, then going to the pharmacist to get it.

Bill Maher had one of his little satirical ads at the head of one of his show recently. I'm sure you have seen it. The one about the AMA.

Nurses are not part of the AMA. Neither are are pharmacists, or RTs, or lab techs. I do not belong to the AMA, nor work for it.

The AMA is a trade organization for MDs. I don't even think that ODs are members.

Obviously there is some major misconception as to what is what in health care, and who are the players, and how they all fit together.


Understandable, I don't understand the NFL yet. I thought that the NFL were all the teams together, and there was some governing body organizing all of them together. Like a Jack in the Box Corporate, that has 30 franchises, with 30 owners of those franchises. I am still figuring it out.

So do you support privatizing all NHS hospitals?

I don't think even Thatcher went that far.

Thatcher, if you pardon me the expression was bug nuts. A rabid neocon before the word was even invented. Sure, some of the things in the UK had to change by the time she came to power, but she went way overboard and ended up costing society hugely both in money and misery.

However, I think a hospital should preferably be run as a business, not as a part of a governmental department.
I also do not automatically object to a government run hospital if that is the only way to achieve what is a government task: providing accessible healthcare for eveybody. If nobody wants to run a hospital in some corner of the country, or is not willing to do so for reasonable prices, then it becomes a government task to do so. But I do not think they should be the first choice.


Eri

Thatcher, if you pardon me the expression was bug nuts. A rabid neocon before the word was even invented. Sure, some of the things in the UK had to change by the time she came to power, but she went way overboard and ended up costing society hugely both in money and misery.
Speaking only on economic policies......

Thatcher didn't pass the buck. Don't mistake the "good years" (quotations emphasized) of Wilson and Callaghan as better governance per say, because they were just delaying the inevitable.

The politically easy solution is to print money and throw subsidizes at uncompetitive industries. 20% and inflation and paying an obscene amount of money to keep a few hundred thousand coal mining, car manufacturing, etc jobs sure will keep the economy going into recession. But I'm convinced that the prosperity of the mid 80s-to-this crisis wouldn't have happened unless the "band-aid" policies of 1970s labour were cleansed from the system.

Speaking only on economic policies......

Thatcher didn't pass the buck. Don't mistake the "good years" (quotations emphasized) of Wilson and Callaghan as better governance per say, because they were just delaying the inevitable.

The politically easy solution is to print money and throw subsidizes at uncompetitive industries. 20% and inflation and paying an obscene amount of money to keep a few hundred thousand coal mining, car manufacturing, etc jobs sure will keep the economy going into recession. But I'm convinced that the prosperity of the mid 80s-to-this crisis wouldn't have happened unless the "band-aid" policies of 1970s labour were cleansed from the system.

Oh I agree with you that she started out with doing things that had to be done to sanitize both economy and economic policy. But she did it with all the subtlety of a bulldozer and all the compassion of Jack the Ripper. And she did not stop when she had achieved what was necessary but kept plowing right through. She did not simply want to reverse disastrous labour policies, she wanted to wipe out that party for all eternity and remake the UK into her free market ideal. She was not the demon in this story, but she was hardly a saint either.


Eri

The legislative records of Thatcher and Reagan are greatly exaggerated. The vast majority of western democracies took large strides towards economic liberalization at some time between the 70s and 90s.

What's (legislatively) unique about Thatcher and Reagan is that they took a more concentrated approach at liberalization. For example, Reagan invested the vast majority of his 'free market' agenda in tax cuts, and Thatcher focused on unions and privatization. Compare this to former Swedish Prime minister Carl Bildt, who actually had greater legislative accomplishments than Thatcher or Reagan, but he went about economic liberalization in a more broad way instead of focusing on a few areas.

Why I believe Thatcher and Reagan are the subject of so much attention to this day is because of their rhetoric, not their actual legislative agenda.

But I'll remind you that a large part of their rhetoric was due to political, not ideological reasons. They wanted to further separate the conservative movement from democrats/labour in the eyes of the voters, and to use free market support as a rhetorical weapon against the Soviets.

[She wanted to] remake the UK into her free market ideal.
While I do think that Thatcher was more ideologically supportive of free markets than Reagan, both still supported strong states (just the neoconservative form of big government.) But I don't know if, say, a Dictator Thatcher would've turned the UK into a Hong Kong clone. She would even brag about raising NHS funding, mind you.

But perhaps I'm biased, since I think rhetoric and intentions mean jack **** compared to actual governance.

Working without pay is slavery. Why should anyone be forced to work for free, that is immoral.Right. So since we have to pay for the services, the issue being able to pay for the services and the issue of physically getting those services merge into one issue.

I'm not confused, it's just that your hair splitting is irrelevant to the discussion.It does not matter who pays for it. It, the real costs, will still cost the same.Really?

You mean if the government takes over, I'll still be paying for insurance company profits? And inflated insurance company executive compensation?Health care MUST be a private function. How it is paid for can be public for all I care.So you agree, a socialist single payer system is the way to go.

Why didn't you just say so, it would've saved a lot of time.

No one is trying to socialize the physical aspect of providing health care; there's no need for it really.

Right. So since we have to pay for the services, the issue being able to pay for the services and the issue of physically getting those services merge into one issue. No they don't.

What other business besides health insurance merges into what is being paid for?

Even car insurance is not like this. When you need work done on your car, you get an estimate, get the work done, then your insurance pays for that work. You don't think in your mind that Geico is the same business as ABC Car Repair, or in the same industry.

You certainly don't put in your mind that State Farm is the same business as say, a flood repair contractor.

They are not in the same business. They are not.

I'm not confused, it's just that your hair splitting is irrelevant to the discussion. People who get American health care don't want you messing with the actual service.

Those are where most of the objections to Hillary Care came from. It wanted to take over the hospitals, doctors, and nurses, and control how healthcare is provided. People who have paid for the service, and who are at high risk to need those services. Those who use it presently. And they vote.

You need to convince them that they will continue to get the same actual healthcare, if not better.

Your fake statistics about how bad the actual healthcare is are wrong. We in the healthcare industry know that. Nursing alone is the single biggest, by number, industry in this country. The little CNA alone has enormous power, not just in California, but in other states as well. You are not going to convince them to buy your argument by telling them that their service sucks.

Doctors certainly will not be on board, if you keep trying to tell them that they suck worse than other countries' doctors. They know that is wrong. They know your statistics are jimmied and rigged. And they know why and how they are.


Really? I stated the cost of the product and service. The actual care, products, services. Those numbers are relatively unchangeable.

That leaves all of the money spent on insurance companies that you can go after. All their assets and profits. Put everyone in an insurance company out of business for all I care. From the lowest claims adjuster to the CEOs. Have them all find something new to do, I don't care about them.


You mean if the government takes over, I'll still be paying for insurance company profits? And inflated insurance company executive compensation? Why?

The only people in this country who want insurance companies, are those insurance companies and all of your representatives; because they have been paid off by them.

I don't care where you pool the money. I don't think anyone but the aforementioned do either.


So you agree, a socialist single payer system is the way to go. Socialism is the control of production, insurance companies produce nothing. They are just a clearinghouse for payments.

And they are doing a poor job of it. Make that case. Put them out of business.

Why didn't you just say so, it would've saved a lot of time.
You think that thinking that health care and health insurance are the same thing. You keep debating that they are one and the same.

No one is trying to socialize the physical aspect of providing health care; there's no need for it really. Well, they did with Hillary Care.

Obama, and every Dem in Congress, started in the middle, at the compromised position.

And you continue with that same line with the/your arguments that the actual health care provided sucks. It doesn't.

How it is paid for sucks.

1) Pre existing condition exclusion is criminal
2) Increased individual rates is criminal
3) Rescission is criminal
4) CEO pay is criminal
5) Profiting off of the moving of money from customer to health care provider is criminal

You need to keep hammering this point. CNN is actually attempting to do this presently. Kudos to them in this regard. They are leaving health care providers out of their attacks and focusing on insurance companies.

They are not in the same business. They are not.Who says they are? I'm just saying it's not important in this discussion.

The issue is how they get paid, and "health care" is just shorthand for "the method by which the industry of providing health care services, developing and manufacturing pharmaceuticals, and developing and manufacturing health care-related goods will be funded".

If you truly don't understand what I mean (and I know you do), I can use the clumsy longhand. It wouldn't change the substance one bit.I stated the cost of the product and service. The actual care, products, services. Those numbers are relatively unchangeable.Of course they changeable, because for the consumer, they are directly tied in with insurance prices.

Eliminate the insurance companies, and their overhead, and the cost of providing the same service to the consumer will be lowered, even if you keep everything else constant.

Where do you think all those insurance company profits and executive compensation come from?

Who says they are? I'm just saying it's not important in this discussion. I think it is important.

You had over a million people in Washington, at one time, back in September who thought so too.

The issue is how they get paid, and "health care" is just shorthand for "the method by which the industry of providing health care services, developing and manufacturing pharmaceuticals, and developing and manufacturing health care-related goods will be funded" You will fail in your arguments if you lump all of the good with the bad.

Go for it.

And insurance company provides NO care, of any kind, health the least. To say that they do is retarded. They are not in business to provide health services. Include them at your own peril.

If you truly don't understand what I mean (and I know you do), I can use the clumsy longhand. It wouldn't change the substance one bit.Of course they changeable, because for the consumer, they are directly tied in with insurance prices. It is a conjoined twin; in perception only. You need to separate them.

Americans like one of those twins(doctors, nurses, their drugs), and hates the other(insurance companies)

Make the case that they are separate. Focus on insurance alone. And you can win.

Eliminate the insurance companies, and their overhead, and the cost of providing the same service to the consumer will be lowered, even if you keep everything else constant. How does the cost of providing the care decrease?
Doctors, nurses, MAs, RT, Rad Techs, Pharmacists, Pharm Techs, etc...everyone actually providing the services are still going to be needed.

The biggest cost in actual care is labor.

There is admin cost, and risk management, and the cost of buildings sure. But nursing the biggest cost in a hospital or in a doctors office.

Where do you think all those insurance company profits and executive compensation come from? Most of the profits come from their investment of the money you send to them as premiums. They invest that, and take the profits from those investments to make profit and payouts.

When you hear the term 'institutional investor', one of the biggest subset are insurance companies.

Americans like one of those twins(doctors, nurses, their drugs), and hates the other(insurance companies)For the record, I'm not too fond of the former either. But it's not part of this discussion.How does the cost of providing the care decrease?
Doctors, nurses, MAs, RT, Rad Techs, Pharmacists, Pharm Techs, etc...everyone actually providing the services are still going to be needed.Because there is an additional cost to the consumer now, the insurance company.

It's like sales tax. It doesn't matter that the state of California did nothing to enhance that product, because I still have to pay for it.

So it's a real cost, one that can be eliminated while providing the same service (or product).Most of the profits come from their investment of the money you send to them as premiums. They invest that, and take the profits from those investments to make profit and payouts.Investments that the consumer is denied.

Any way you look at it, it's an added cost to me, the consumer.

For the record, I'm not too fond of the former either. But it's not part of this discussion. Bet you that Diane Feinstein and Barbra Boxer never heard of you; and don't know your name. I bet they know all of the names of every pharma, insurance, AMA lobbyist who comes to see them and give money to their PACs.

Most Americans who have insurance, and who vote, love their doctors and nurses.

It is these people you need to convince if you are going to win legislation for your reform. For your opponents are formidable.

Anything that is going through Congress now is a big stroke job, and won't change anything that you, Bill Maher, or MM want done. The Baucus bill is a big stroke job. Like my image in the other thread implied, it is firing your gun with only your wad in the shell, in the chamber. There is not shot, no bullet in that chamber.

I am giving you the template to get most of what you want. You won't get it otherwise.

You need to make the health insurers worse in the public eye than tobacco companies in perception. Leaving the actual health care providers alone.

You CAN overcome the insurance companies. But only by themselves.

When you lump hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device companies in with them....

YOU WILL LOSE!!!

Americans love their doctors, their nurses, their drugs, and their pacemakers. They don't want you touching them.


Because there is an additional cost to the consumer now, the insurance company. Let me rephrase it.
Add what insurance companies payout for healthcare.
Add what the government pays for healthcare.
Add to that the healthcare that does not get paid for(what healthcare eats).
The sum of that is not going to change dramatically under ANY system. It won't go down unless you fire people, or cut their pay or benefits.

Labor by healthcare providers is the biggest cost of health care. And unless you reduce the level of service you will never see any cost savings from this sector.

Americans don't want lower service in healthcare.


It's like sales tax. It doesn't matter that the state of California did nothing to enhance that product, because I still have to pay for it. You don't pay California sale tax as a consumer. Splitting hairs here, but you don't. The vendor pays it, and is allowed by law to pass the cost to you as an addition. A vendor is not obligated to charge you sales tax, they are obligated to pay it.

I am pretty sure that the actual word 'allow' is what is in the law. Been a while since I last read it.

So it's a real cost, one that can be eliminated while providing the same service (or product). It is a cost that does not need to be there.

Investments that the consumer is denied.

Any way you look at it, it's an added cost to me, the consumer. Stating the obvious.

But ignoring what my point was. The nation will take an economic hit if you put institutional investors out of business.

9 months ago the Dow was about 6,000, now it is 10,000. If you take the money from insurance companies, and pool it in a government building with an agency to dole it out, most likely they will not be investing in the private or public markets. Causing a substantial loss in the market's value.

Here's a new one: Toddler denied insurance for being too small (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33411196/ns/today-today_health/)

First, a Colorado baby was turned down for health insurance for being too big. Now, another Colorado child has been turned down for health insurance for being too small.

Just a week after TODAY highlighted the story of 4-month-old Alex Lange, who at 17 pounds was considered obese, the show presented Wednesday the equally curious case of 2-year-old Aislin Bates, who at 22 pounds was turned down for health insurance for not meeting a proposed insurer’s height and weight standards.