Why Obama's Health Care Plan Won't Work

Search

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Steve Chapman, last seen here at the RxPoliticoPub when I posted his Reason.com column noting the advantages Sarah Palin has heretofore enjoyed in large part due to her general sex appeal, gets loose today with some rippin' on Obama's health care plans

Hat tip to Reason.com's Hit&Run

===========
http://www.reason.com/news/show/134838.html

The 'Public Option' Health Care Scam

Why Obama's plan won't work

Steve Chapman | July 16, 2009


Some statements are inherently unbelievable. Such as: "I am an official of the government of Nigeria, and I would like to deposit $60 million in your bank account." Or: "I'm Barry Bonds, and I thought it was flaxseed oil." And this new one: "I'm Barack Obama, and I favor more competition in health insurance."

That, however, is the claim behind his support of a government-run health insurance plan to give consumers one more choice. The president says a "public option" would improve the functioning of the market because it would "force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest."

He has indicated that while he is willing to discuss a variety of remedies as part of health insurance reform, this one is non-negotiable. House Democrats, not surprisingly, included the government plan in the 1,000-page bill they unveiled Tuesday.

It will come as a surprise to private health insurance providers that they have not had to compete up till now. Nationally, there are some 1,300 companies battling for customers. Critics say in many states, one or two insurers enjoy a dominant position. But market dominance doesn't necessarily mean insufficient competition.

Microsoft's dominance of software didn't prevent the rise of Google, and Google's dominance of search engine traffic didn't prevent Microsoft from offering Bing. If a few health insurance providers were suppressing competition at the expense of consumers, you'd expect to see obscene profits. But net profit margins in the business run about 3 percent, only slightly above the median for all industries.

There are reasons, though, to think that the president's real enthusiasm is not for competition but for government expansion. Free-market advocates want to foster competition by letting consumers in one state buy coverage offered in other states. If WellPoint has more than half the business in Indiana, why not let Indiana residents or companies go to California or Minnesota to see if they can find options that are cheaper or better?

But the administration and its allies show no interest in removing that particular barrier to competition. Maybe that's because it would reduce the power of state regulators to boss insurance companies around.

Nor does Obama believe in fostering competition in other health insurance realms—such as existing government health insurance programs. John Goodman, head of the National Center for Policy Analysis, suggests letting Americans now enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) select a voucher to buy private coverage if they want. Don't hold your breath waiting for the administration to push that idea.

Supporters of the "public option" think it can achieve efficiencies allowing it to underprice existing insurers. But efficiency is to government programs what barbecue sauce is to an ice-cream sundae: not a typical component. Nor is there any reason to think Washington can administer health insurance with appreciably lower overhead than private companies.

Medicare supposedly does so, but that is partly because it doesn't have to engage in marketing to attract customers, which this program would. It also spends less than private companies combating fraud and unwarranted treatments—a type of monitoring that spends dollars while saving more.

As the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach." False economies are one reason Medicare has done a poor job of controlling costs.

But a public program of the sort Democrats propose doesn't have to control costs, because in a pinch it can count on the government to keep it in business. Competition is healthy, but how are private companies supposed to compete with an operation that can tap the Treasury?

Students of the Obama economic policy will also note a curious consistency in its approach to economic issues. Some problems, like the near-collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, came about because competition worked very well at serving consumers and punishing poorly run companies. Some problems, such as high health insurance premiums, came about because competition allegedly didn't work so well. In both cases, the administration proposes the same solution: more federal spending and a bigger federal role.

Will introducing a government-run insurance program work? After all, that Nigerian financial scam works. Just not necessarily the way you hope.
 

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
"such as high health insurance premiums, came about because competition allegedly didn't work so well"

allegedly is right, it doesnt work because the Govt was in the pockets of the insurance companies.....When insurance or any other business is allowed to write their own rules their will be no competition. Which serves the Govt perfectly since the last thing they want in anything is competition
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
If the government is so inefficient in running a business, why is the insurance industry so afraid of competing with a govt run company?
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
If the government is so inefficient in running a business, why is the insurance industry so afraid of competing with a govt run company?


because government doesn't have to turn a profit?

because a government run program, like medicare, can create an 85 trillion dollar loss and not be out of business

how can you compete with a company that can lose 85 trillion dollars and still be in business?

LOL
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,892
Tokens
If the government is so inefficient in running a business, why is the insurance industry so afraid of competing with a govt run company?

Because no business can compete against the nearly unlimited resources of government...not to mention the government has the advantage of changing the rules at any time and doesn't need to show a profit.

Duh and double Duh.

1. box of hair

A derogatory metaphor used to insult someone's intelligence level and comprehension of common sense, comparing their IQ to that of a box of hair, which--all things equal--should have an IQ of zero.

2. box of hair

Used as an ultimate example of stupidity or uselessness in people, ideas, or objects.
Bob is as dumb as a box of hair.
My boss's newest scheme is about as dumb as a box of hair.
Most of Mr. Popeil's products are about as useful as a box of hair.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,898
Tokens
Obamacare is the worst of the many bizarre policies he's fostered.
Niagra Falls will flow backwards before BO comes up with a policy I like.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
because government doesn't have to turn a profit?

because a government run program, like medicare, can create an 85 trillion dollar loss and not be out of business

how can you compete with a company that can lose 85 trillion dollars and still be in business?

LOL

Medicare only serves to subsidise commercial insurance. If there were no medicare and commercial insurance companies kept raising their rates as people grow older and find all different ways to deny coverage. We would never have put up with them this long, medical insurance would have been nationalized long ago.

Medicare would not lose anything like that if they took all people. As it is now they only take the uninsurable.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
6,145
Tokens
Why govt. should stay out of competing with industry 101

Take the post office as an example of govt. efficiency. Only with health care the numbers and impact on individuals is greater.

Amtrak. Continues to run a deficit year after year.



The govt. health care scheme will never work because it adds to the problem by implementing more regulation. The solution calls for less.
 

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
7,168
Tokens
Obamacare wont work because he wants to reign in costs but leave the insurance companies profits intact at the same time

Cant have both, my brutha
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Presto, maybe the Govt should get out of road building and national defense. A whole bunch of "Blackwater's" running around killing and billing would just be great.

The Govt is only supposed to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. The fact that 50 million people are uninsured pretty well proves our failure to provide affordable healthcare for ourselves. If the Govt has to take over in the form of medicare for the uninsurable why should they not be able to offer coverage for the profitable citizens?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,892
Tokens
Presto, maybe the Govt should get out of road building and national defense. A whole bunch of "Blackwater's" running around killing and billing would just be great.

The Govt is only supposed to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. The fact that 50 million people are uninsured pretty well proves our failure to provide affordable healthcare for ourselves. If the Govt has to take over in the form of medicare for the uninsurable why should they not be able to offer coverage for the profitable citizens?

The Govt is only supposed to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

"Supposed"? Where is that law written?

Who says what we cannot do for ourselves? You?????

The lies and deception you throw around here, as fact, is remarkable.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
...because a government run program, like medicare, can create an 85 trillion dollar loss......

Do you have a cite for that number?
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
here it is Steve



Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Home of Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun & Looney Libs
Posts: 13,694


<!-- icon and title -->
icon1.gif

<hr style="color: rgb(253, 222, 130); background-color: rgb(253, 222, 130);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speech...8/fs080528.cfm

The good news is this Social Security shortfall might be manageable. While the issues regarding Social Security reform are complex, it is at least possible to imagine how Congress might find, within a $14 trillion economy, ways to wrestle with a $13 trillion unfunded liability. The bad news is that Social Security is the lesser of our entitlement worries. It is but the tip of the unfunded liability iceberg. The much bigger concern is Medicare, a program established in 1965, the same prosperous year that Bill Martin cautioned his Columbia University audience to be wary of complacency and storms on the horizon.
Medicare was a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning, despite warnings from some congressional leaders—Wilbur Mills was the most credible of them before he succumbed to the pay-as-you-go wiles of Fanne Foxe, the Argentine Firecracker—who foresaw some of the long-term fiscal issues such a financing system could pose. Unfortunately, they were right.
Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Oh...so that number is a forecast of future expenditures. The way you worded it higher in the thread implied that the money had already been expended without being actually funded.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Caused me a flashback to MMJ posting that "Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke and the VA is broke".
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
Oh...so that number is a forecast of future expenditures. The way you worded it higher in the thread implied that the money had already been expended without being actually funded.

bar, only the federal government can legally have such an unfunded liability

that's like saying having more debt than you can afford is OK because you're not paying for it right now

every business in the world would be closed down with this type of debt or this MO.

making light of this just doesn't work
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
By no means am I intending to make light of the matter at hand.

I was just thrown for a moment by your wording.

Now that I understand your intended declaration, I concur that to my knowledge no other business in the USA enjoys as much financial latitude as does the US federal government (and if I'm not mistaken, most state-level governments within the U.S.)
 

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
7,168
Tokens
The cost of doing something is around 1 trillion

The cost of doing nothing is 85 trillion


HMMM tough choice(<)<
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
LOL

that's the ultimate spin

only Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Punter argue that the proposed plan saves money

blue dog democrats don't support the bill because it don't

and the CBO says (1) the bill will increase the federal debt and (2) the bill will increase the cost of health care

arguing that this bill is somehow fiscally responsible is just plan silly
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,925
Messages
13,575,333
Members
100,883
Latest member
iniesta2025
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com