1billsfan Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Again, what everyone ignores is the total cost of providing care. Your explanation doesn't touch it and the plan doesn't address it. All it does is move the cost from one side of the room (subsidy by private insurance) to another side of the room (public option with a bigger subsidy by private insurance and/or taxpayers). Reducing "administrative costs" is a joke because it's an accounting interpretation. Total costs have to go up by definition, because you will be adding at least 10 million people to coverage who will use medical services, but you are not being honest with how that will be financed. Exactly. The healthcare bill should be pushed back until these financial conditions have been achieved... Give the non-spent stimulus money back to Americans. Stop spending money on needless pork barrel projects. Stop spending money on unnecessary things like 5 new corporate jets for congress. Don't waste half a million dollars on Air Force One NYC fly by pictures. Charlie Rangel and the rest of the democrats have to start paying their taxes (that should fund about half the healthcare bill right there). Immediately stop funding corrupt organizations like ACORN with taxpayers dollars. Fire all the Czars. Fix the money drain of Medicaid and Medicare (btw, why did they have to wait for a massive healthcare refom bill to do this?). When they stop wasting our money and fix the things that aren't working financially, then they can seriously start talking about a massive new government program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 i understand that but it's a peripheral issue and different conversation. My explanation doesn't address it because I wasn't talking about total cost or reducing administrative cost, which surely needs to be addressed. I was simply saying that new services are being demanded by new legislation. Private insurers are going to say, rightly, that these are going to make their costs rise. But without a public option to keep prices down for these new 10-20 million people, as well as the 180 million or so already covered privately who will be included in this new legislation, the private insurers will just jack up everyone's rates and have no incentive to lower them. If people, new and old, can get other insurance (even if it's inferior service) at 15% less, the private insurers cannot raise their rates like they will or lose out on 10-20-30 million people they will need to keep their profits up. The total costs issue can be discussed elsewhere. But that's the whole point. THE problem of healthcare is the total cost of providing care and how it is going up exponentially. By mandating that healthcare providers charge 85% of regular prices for 10-15 million new users without finding the source to pay for it is a huge issue and shouldn't be swept under the rug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 The total costs issue can be discussed elsewhere. That's the main issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 don't worry about it, they have it under control.....they just don't want to give the details, yet That's the main issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts