Private health insurance regulation the key to fixing health care costs

Wow totally inaccurate. Obama care did nothing to control what premiums insurers could charge or how much they could raise premiums or suddenly stop paying for certain drugs or services. You don't know the facts

 

Not all doctors are in it for the money; many want to make a difference. A business need not make enough to both cover expenses and make a profit, instead cover expenses, ie. payroll, benefits, rent, electric, etc. Profit is not a necessity. Many Doctors whose hourly wages have dropped 50% continue to work instead of leaving the profession since they working for the betterment of all mankind. Ever hear of not-for-profit clinics? It's not about profits for them instead about services to the public.

 

Obviously you are totally ignorant. Who would work for nothing? Do you?

 

Now look whose being ignorant. Your reading skills are a bit off. Go back and read the post again before you convince everyone that you are ignorant. And yes, I do work for nothing. Ever hear the term "volunteer"? or maybe it's a foreign term to you?

 

If you want to create a public option, funded exclusively by policy holders, I have absolutely zero objection. I'd even go as far as calculating the percentage of taxes currently paid towards Medicaid to be dedicated to such a purpose to subsidize lower income individuals, if Medicaid was completely eliminated.

The health care I have is the health care I want. The moment you expect me to pay drastically more, and receive less coverage, is the moment my answer is no.

The government can not compete with free markets, so I'm more than happy to allow them to try.

 

The ACA mandates that 80% of health insurance spending be on health care, so how does an insurance company spend 40% on administration?

 

To reinforce your point, in my profession many of my colleagues spend a great deal of time "working for nothing".

If I'm working on a commercial project I'm billing every *******n hour, but if I spend 6 hours trying to find out why an old lady's water heater isn't working, finally discover the problem, and think to myself that I'm an idiot for not checking that first, regardless of how it's the first time I've ever seen it in a storied career, I'm not handing an old lady a bill for $800.

 

Wrong. Private health insurance is very heavily regulated at the state and federal level. And it is regulated under obamacare.

Florida had the "patient protection" part of obamacare long before obama even ran for office. Dependents (up to age 26, now its up to age 30) could stay on their parents health care, people could not be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, etc.

When that was enacted in Florida (by the Florida state govt), rates went up tremendously.

When the govt steps in, the economics are warped and the prices go through the roof.

Your entire thesis is wrong.

 

well, every other first world country, with single payer, gets better healthcare than we do, and it costs them a fraction of what it costs us. So, obviously, government can and does compete, and crush free markets, in certain sectors.

 

and reality shows this to be nonsense. Every other first world country that has a single payer system, pays WAY LESS than we do, and receive better care.

 

Wrong. All other govt run systems are in trouble, even Canada's. Canada has documented its troubles in an objective manner, go learn the truth https://www.cihi.ca/en

 

Nope. All other single payer systems are a fraction of the cost of the US healthcare system, and they receive better care.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...1/how-expensive-would-single-payer-system-be/

 

Half the US health care industry is currently socialized, and government spends significantly more per person covered than private insurance.

 

because half the US health care industry is a for profit system. That needs taken away, and single payer implemented. Every other first world country with single payer, gets better care than we do, at a fraction of the cost.

 

First, I reject politifact as a source, its a liberal sight and biased. That's been shown repeatedly in and out of the forum.

Second, nobody knows the true cost of these systems since the costs are wrapped up in multiple govt agencies, the private sector, and individuals. Even the full cost of medicare in the US is heavily debated.

Third, claims that single payer has better health outcomes are typically politically driven. The Canadian data at www.cihi.ca shows that the Canadian system has many weaknesses, care is not universally better than in the USA and in many situations it is worse.

 

which negates anything further you have to say. Hand waving away cited and sourced evidence, doesn't make it go away, or in any way resemble an argument. so, I accept your concession.

 

If I give you Rush Limbaugh as proof, would you accept it or claim it was biased and refuse it? Yea, thought so. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

You were proven wrong, with citation.

 

Think of it from a different perspective. What is your objective? Is it to convince yourself, or to convince me? If your aim is to convince me, then you must use data that I will accept.

I referenced the Canadian Institute of Health Information (www.cihi.ca/en), an organization tasked by and funded by the Canadian govt to collect and present data on the Canadian health care system. Objective, first source data that exposes the good and the bad of the Canadian system.

If you want to convince me, then present data from an equally reputable source.

 

I don't need to. Your claim was proven wrong, with citation. You hand waived it away. You lose by default. I accept your concession.

The link you provided takes me to their home page. what is it, specifically, that you think helps you?

 

So this is a competition in which you win if you cannot convince me that your argument is correct? I "lose" by default if you fail to provide adequate facts? Why are you here in a discussion forum?

CIHI is a reputable source with direct access to the data, it is a primary source. Politifact is a secondary source which simply collates selected data. There are good data sources on single payer, if you are honest you will spend the time to learn the subject and use the primary sources.

Search CIHI on wait times, access to treatment, and other issues that you think are handled better in single payer. Search on the Canadian 10 Year Plan, which was a plan to solve some of their more serious problems - and the plan failed.

 

no, it's a debate in which evidence is required to support or disprove an argument. Your position was disproven by my citation.

 

And my citation was better than yours, so by your rules, I win.

But that aside, its clear you are not interested in factual debate. Otherwise you would be spending time on CIHI learning the facts. But laziness is not surprising in a people who blindly believe the propaganda about single payer.

 

nope. your citation is to a home page. Cite specifically the portion you think supports you.

a rather odd thing to say, since I gave you the facts, with citation, showing your argument is incorrect.