Rethuglican Congresswoman: "There are no Americans who don't have healthcare"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Boy, what a party! What better way to bring more to the party then to tell them they don't even exist. Bypass saying you don't give a damn about the uninsured, just tell 'em they don't exist. That tent of theirs must be feeling quite cozy right now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) disputes President Obama’s claim that 47 million Americans lack healthcare. “There are no Americans who don’t have healthcare. Everybody in this country has access to healthcare,” she says.

http://talkradionews.com/2009/07/obama-exa...ays-goper-foxx/

That's a bit of a "let them eat cake" moment.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It may come as a shock to you who live out in the real world, but occasionally we do something up here. Not often, I admit, but sometimes. For example, I think the House has passed National Peach Month so far this year and we expect to act on it soon." --Senate Majority Leader (and Presidential candidate) Robert Dole of Kansas in 1982

Ah Republicans, they put one in the mind of fairies!

[alienlovechild 75]

I am not talking about taking money away from doctors. I am talking about cutting the useless dead weight that the insurance company is and creates - all $350bn-$500bn per year less whatever it really takes to run an insurance and pay the doctors and hospitals. Governments do this at 1%-5% of total expenditure while the private industry here takes 20%-30% to do the same. If they can do it at 5%, let them have at it. If not, they ought to be put out of business for the benefit of the overall economy and hence, for the benefit of each and ever American. If there are 20% to be saved (of a current total of roughly $2tn) - that's a full $400bn year after year. Not sure why anyone would want to keep wasting this kind of cash but it does explain why the nation is in such poor fiscal condition.

The government will save nothing over even the wasteful current system. The government is already failing with Medicare and Social Security and the CBO recently said so (this isn't counting Obama's massive spending). Even if you have health insurance, be prepared for longer lines and less time with medical personnel. Obama's plan only makes sense for the minority that won't or can't pay but want free healthcare anyway.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am not talking about taking money away from doctors. I am talking about cutting the useless dead weight that the insurance company is and creates - all $350bn-$500bn per year less whatever it really takes to run an insurance and pay the doctors and hospitals. Governments do this at 1%-5% of total expenditure while the private industry here takes 20%-30% to do the same. If they can do it at 5%, let them have at it. If not, they ought to be put out of business for the benefit of the overall economy and hence, for the benefit of each and ever American. If there are 20% to be saved (of a current total of roughly $2tn) - that's a full $400bn year after year. Not sure why anyone would want to keep wasting this kind of cash but it does explain why the nation is in such poor fiscal condition.

The government will save nothing over even the wasteful current system.

That's nonsense - doctors wouldn't need to hire and employ people that do nothing but handle the private insurance companies - authorization of procedure, claim filing, re-filing, referrals, etc. That's savings. The insurance companies wouldn't need to employ claim deniers. That's savings. The CEO of one of the major health insurance companies - I believe it was UnitedHealth - walked away with a 1.1 billion dollar severance package when he left the company. That's $1,100,000,000.00 that comes out of your health care spending and mine. And that's just one of the companies and that's just the severance package. Needless waste all around. Roughly one out of every three dollars spent on health care in this country goes to overhead and red tape. That's an insane proportion on top of an overall insane expenditure. Any and all government systems in the developed world - including here in the US - come in at 1% - 5% of overhead. I take that over the 30% we have here any day of the week.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

Very very good questions. Certainly not going to come from those with liberal arts degrees.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

Very very good questions. Certainly not going to come from those with liberal arts degrees.

Australia: 2.5 physicians / 1000

USA: 2.3 physicians / 1000

Canada: 2.1 physicians / 1000

I don't see the problem with the medical personnel.

[Heracles 417]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

Very very good questions. Certainly not going to come from those with liberal arts degrees.

Australia: 2.5 physicians / 1000

USA: 2.3 physicians / 1000

Canada: 2.1 physicians / 1000

I don't see the problem with the medical personnel.

Dude he has a point. If 50+ million people are to be covered, we are going to need doctors to treat them. Considering a medical degree costs about 1 zillion dollars, people are going to have to wait weeks for doctors.

[Tahoma 2,292]

There is a basic disconnect between for-profit health insurance providers and the insured. The first priority of an insurance company is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The health of the insured is not their first priority.

When a portion of your health insurance dollar is spent on shareholder profit, that portion does not go toward providing for your health care. Health insurance providers also divert your health care dollars away from your health care when they spend your health care dollars on lobbying politicians, campaign donations to politicians, and advertising. Excessive salaries and golden parachutes for executives further dilute every dollar you spend on private health insurance.

Medicare has an overhead cost of 3%. Health insurance companies have overhead costs averaging 20% (and it is rising every year).

Note: there are 300,000 people in the United States employed by the insurance industry whose sole job is to minimize your health care claim, or to outright deny it. Denial of claims is an important profit center for the industry. Successful careers are made by those with the highest rate of claim denial.

Also, the argument that there will not be enough doctors to care for everyone in the United States is a red herring. The number of doctors in this country (per 1000 population) is on par with other industrialized countries. If one is concerned about this non-issue, then they should be asking what is preventing our medical schools from training a few more.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

Very very good questions. Certainly not going to come from those with liberal arts degrees.

Australia: 2.5 physicians / 1000

USA: 2.3 physicians / 1000

Canada: 2.1 physicians / 1000

I don't see the problem with the medical personnel.

Dude he has a point. If 50+ million people are to be covered, we are going to need doctors to treat them. Considering a medical degree costs about 1 zillion dollars, people are going to have to wait weeks for doctors.

How are the Australian and Canadian physicians able to treat the entire population of those countries seeing that their physician to population ratio is just about the same as that in the US? Wouldn't the fact that Australia and Canada, which offer 100% coverage and have similar ratios, suggest that there are already enough physicians available in the US to care for the entire population? Or are US physicians that much less efficient than those in Canada and Australia?

Edited July 25, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[luckytxn 2,265]

I am not talking about taking money away from doctors. I am talking about cutting the useless dead weight that the insurance company is and creates - all $350bn-$500bn per year less whatever it really takes to run an insurance and pay the doctors and hospitals. Governments do this at 1%-5% of total expenditure while the private industry here takes 20%-30% to do the same. If they can do it at 5%, let them have at it. If not, they ought to be put out of business for the benefit of the overall economy and hence, for the benefit of each and ever American. If there are 20% to be saved (of a current total of roughly $2tn) - that's a full $400bn year after year. Not sure why anyone would want to keep wasting this kind of cash but it does explain why the nation is in such poor fiscal condition.

The government will save nothing over even the wasteful current system.

That's nonsense - doctors wouldn't need to hire and employ people that do nothing but handle the private insurance companies - authorization of procedure, claim filing, re-filing, referrals, etc. That's savings. The insurance companies wouldn't need to employ claim deniers. That's savings. The CEO of one of the major health insurance companies - I believe it was UnitedHealth - walked away with a 1.1 billion dollar severance package when he left the company. That's $1,100,000,000.00 that comes out of your health care spending and mine. And that's just one of the companies and that's just the severance package. Needless waste all around. Roughly one out of every three dollars spent on health care in this country goes to overhead and red tape. That's an insane proportion on top of an overall insane expenditure. Any and all government systems in the developed world - including here in the US - come in at 1% - 5% of overhead. I take that over the 30% we have here any day of the week.

I would love to see the real figures for this. Usual Fed bureaucracy is way above this. Also if you you do get rid of the claims deniers and paperwork people and others that are needed to do the papers for the insurers (and Government programs by the way) and the Feds take over then wouldn't they still be needed to handle the huge bureaucracy that will be in place?

Honestly is there not a wasteful Federal bureaucracy. One that year by year gets more huge and unwieldly and needs even more money thrown at it?

1=5 % of overhead for a Federal bureaucracy is wishful thinking.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is a basic disconnect between for-profit health insurance providers and the insured. The first priority of an insurance company is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The health of the insured is not their first priority.

When a portion of your health insurance dollar is spent on shareholder profit, that portion does not go toward providing for your health care. Health insurance providers also divert your health care dollars away from your health care when they spend your health care dollars on lobbying politicians, campaign donations to politicians, and advertising. Excessive salaries and golden parachutes for executives further dilute every dollar you spend on private health insurance.

Medicare has an overhead cost of 3%. Health insurance companies have overhead costs averaging 20% (and it is rising every year).

Note: there are 300,000 people in the United States employed by the insurance industry whose sole job is to minimize your health care claim, or to outright deny it. Denial of claims is an important profit center for the industry. Successful careers are made by those with the highest rate of claim denial.

Also, the argument that there will not be enough doctors to care for everyone in the United States is a red herring. The number of doctors in this country (per 1000 population) is on par with other industrialized countries. If one is concerned about this non-issue, then they should be asking what is preventing our medical schools from training a few more.

Yep, it's really not that hard to grasp.

I am not talking about taking money away from doctors. I am talking about cutting the useless dead weight that the insurance company is and creates - all $350bn-$500bn per year less whatever it really takes to run an insurance and pay the doctors and hospitals. Governments do this at 1%-5% of total expenditure while the private industry here takes 20%-30% to do the same. If they can do it at 5%, let them have at it. If not, they ought to be put out of business for the benefit of the overall economy and hence, for the benefit of each and ever American. If there are 20% to be saved (of a current total of roughly $2tn) - that's a full $400bn year after year. Not sure why anyone would want to keep wasting this kind of cash but it does explain why the nation is in such poor fiscal condition.

The government will save nothing over even the wasteful current system.

That's nonsense - doctors wouldn't need to hire and employ people that do nothing but handle the private insurance companies - authorization of procedure, claim filing, re-filing, referrals, etc. That's savings. The insurance companies wouldn't need to employ claim deniers. That's savings. The CEO of one of the major health insurance companies - I believe it was UnitedHealth - walked away with a 1.1 billion dollar severance package when he left the company. That's $1,100,000,000.00 that comes out of your health care spending and mine. And that's just one of the companies and that's just the severance package. Needless waste all around. Roughly one out of every three dollars spent on health care in this country goes to overhead and red tape. That's an insane proportion on top of an overall insane expenditure. Any and all government systems in the developed world - including here in the US - come in at 1% - 5% of overhead. I take that over the 30% we have here any day of the week.

I would love to see the real figures for this. Usual Fed bureaucracy is way above this. Also if you you do get rid of the claims deniers and paperwork people and others that are needed to do the papers for the insurers (and Government programs by the way) and the Feds take over then wouldn't they still be needed to handle the huge bureaucracy that will be in place?

Honestly is there not a wasteful Federal bureaucracy. One that year by year gets more huge and unwieldly and needs even more money thrown at it?

1=5 % of overhead for a Federal bureaucracy is wishful thinking.

It's the reality. Look it up.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

If there are millions without health care, where will all the additional medical personnel come from to treat those individuals?

Very very good questions. Certainly not going to come from those with liberal arts degrees.

Australia: 2.5 physicians / 1000

USA: 2.3 physicians / 1000

Canada: 2.1 physicians / 1000

I don't see the problem with the medical personnel.

Dude he has a point. If 50+ million people are to be covered, we are going to need doctors to treat them. Considering a medical degree costs about 1 zillion dollars, people are going to have to wait weeks for doctors.

How are the Australian and Canadian physicians able to treat the entire population of those countries seeing that their physician to population ratio is just about the same as that in the US? Wouldn't the fact that Australia and Canada, which offer 100% coverage and have similar ratios, suggest that there are already enough physicians available in the US to care for the entire population? Or are US physicians that much less efficient than those in Canada and Australia?

There was a transition period. America simply does not have enough doctors to take care of all these people. Let alone the specialists. Heck, Australian has a shortage of both too. 50+ million are currently not covered, which most likely means they do not see any doctors. Most doctors are busy at it is, therefore, how will the doctors handle the load of an extra 50+ million people. Probably even more actually considering many are currently under-insured and don't visit the doctor anyway.

The thought that 50+ million people will be able to see a doctor is a huge challenge. Not to mention that not all doctors will accept people covered by the government single payer plan. I certainly don't want to end up like Australia where you were rushed in and out of the doctors, that is, considering a doctor has to rely on quantity to make ends meet and keep the system affordable. As a kid I remember having to wait 1.5 hours in waiting rooms, surrounded by 10 or 20 other sick people to see a GP. Of course, as the system matured it has improved. However, the first two decades after the 1984 launch of a single payer system there was really tough transition period for Australia. Anyone who 'assumes' that after we switch to a single payer system that they will be able to see a doctor or specialist in an hour is deluding themselves.

You also have to consider who is covered. If they don't cap this at legal residents and citizens, then there will be a huge drain on the system. The country will simply not afford to cover both or have the means (doctors and co) to support them. I doubt any country could afford to cover 15+ million extra illegal immigrants.

Edited July 25, 2009 by haza

[luckytxn 2,265]

There is a basic disconnect between for-profit health insurance providers and the insured. The first priority of an insurance company is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The health of the insured is not their first priority.

When a portion of your health insurance dollar is spent on shareholder profit, that portion does not go toward providing for your health care. Health insurance providers also divert your health care dollars away from your health care when they spend your health care dollars on lobbying politicians, campaign donations to politicians, and advertising. Excessive salaries and golden parachutes for executives further dilute every dollar you spend on private health insurance.

Medicare has an overhead cost of 3%. Health insurance companies have overhead costs averaging 20% (and it is rising every year).

Note: there are 300,000 people in the United States employed by the insurance industry whose sole job is to minimize your health care claim, or to outright deny it. Denial of claims is an important profit center for the industry. Successful careers are made by those with the highest rate of claim denial.

Also, the argument that there will not be enough doctors to care for everyone in the United States is a red herring. The number of doctors in this country (per 1000 population) is on par with other industrialized countries. If one is concerned about this non-issue, then they should be asking what is preventing our medical schools from training a few more.

Yep, it's really not that hard to grasp.

I am not talking about taking money away from doctors. I am talking about cutting the useless dead weight that the insurance company is and creates - all $350bn-$500bn per year less whatever it really takes to run an insurance and pay the doctors and hospitals. Governments do this at 1%-5% of total expenditure while the private industry here takes 20%-30% to do the same. If they can do it at 5%, let them have at it. If not, they ought to be put out of business for the benefit of the overall economy and hence, for the benefit of each and ever American. If there are 20% to be saved (of a current total of roughly $2tn) - that's a full $400bn year after year. Not sure why anyone would want to keep wasting this kind of cash but it does explain why the nation is in such poor fiscal condition.

The government will save nothing over even the wasteful current system.

That's nonsense - doctors wouldn't need to hire and employ people that do nothing but handle the private insurance companies - authorization of procedure, claim filing, re-filing, referrals, etc. That's savings. The insurance companies wouldn't need to employ claim deniers. That's savings. The CEO of one of the major health insurance companies - I believe it was UnitedHealth - walked away with a 1.1 billion dollar severance package when he left the company. That's $1,100,000,000.00 that comes out of your health care spending and mine. And that's just one of the companies and that's just the severance package. Needless waste all around. Roughly one out of every three dollars spent on health care in this country goes to overhead and red tape. That's an insane proportion on top of an overall insane expenditure. Any and all government systems in the developed world - including here in the US - come in at 1% - 5% of overhead. I take that over the 30% we have here any day of the week.

I would love to see the real figures for this. Usual Fed bureaucracy is way above this. Also if you you do get rid of the claims deniers and paperwork people and others that are needed to do the papers for the insurers (and Government programs by the way) and the Feds take over then wouldn't they still be needed to handle the huge bureaucracy that will be in place?

Honestly is there not a wasteful Federal bureaucracy. One that year by year gets more huge and unwieldly and needs even more money thrown at it?

1=5 % of overhead for a Federal bureaucracy is wishful thinking.

It's the reality. Look it up.

I am and nothing that I have read so far even comes near to this wishful thinking.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is a basic disconnect between for-profit health insurance providers and the insured. The first priority of an insurance company is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The health of the insured is not their first priority.

When a portion of your health insurance dollar is spent on shareholder profit, that portion does not go toward providing for your health care. Health insurance providers also divert your health care dollars away from your health care when they spend your health care dollars on lobbying politicians, campaign donations to politicians, and advertising. Excessive salaries and golden parachutes for executives further dilute every dollar you spend on private health insurance.

Medicare has an overhead cost of 3%. Health insurance companies have overhead costs averaging 20% (and it is rising every year).

Note: there are 300,000 people in the United States employed by the insurance industry whose sole job is to minimize your health care claim, or to outright deny it. Denial of claims is an important profit center for the industry. Successful careers are made by those with the highest rate of claim denial.

Also, the argument that there will not be enough doctors to care for everyone in the United States is a red herring. The number of doctors in this country (per 1000 population) is on par with other industrialized countries. If one is concerned about this non-issue, then they should be asking what is preventing our medical schools from training a few more.

Yep, it's really not that hard to grasp.

I am not talking about taking money away from doctors. I am talking about cutting the useless dead weight that the insurance company is and creates - all $350bn-$500bn per year less whatever it really takes to run an insurance and pay the doctors and hospitals. Governments do this at 1%-5% of total expenditure while the private industry here takes 20%-30% to do the same. If they can do it at 5%, let them have at it. If not, they ought to be put out of business for the benefit of the overall economy and hence, for the benefit of each and ever American. If there are 20% to be saved (of a current total of roughly $2tn) - that's a full $400bn year after year. Not sure why anyone would want to keep wasting this kind of cash but it does explain why the nation is in such poor fiscal condition.

The government will save nothing over even the wasteful current system.

That's nonsense - doctors wouldn't need to hire and employ people that do nothing but handle the private insurance companies - authorization of procedure, claim filing, re-filing, referrals, etc. That's savings. The insurance companies wouldn't need to employ claim deniers. That's savings. The CEO of one of the major health insurance companies - I believe it was UnitedHealth - walked away with a 1.1 billion dollar severance package when he left the company. That's $1,100,000,000.00 that comes out of your health care spending and mine. And that's just one of the companies and that's just the severance package. Needless waste all around. Roughly one out of every three dollars spent on health care in this country goes to overhead and red tape. That's an insane proportion on top of an overall insane expenditure. Any and all government systems in the developed world - including here in the US - come in at 1% - 5% of overhead. I take that over the 30% we have here any day of the week.

I would love to see the real figures for this. Usual Fed bureaucracy is way above this. Also if you you do get rid of the claims deniers and paperwork people and others that are needed to do the papers for the insurers (and Government programs by the way) and the Feds take over then wouldn't they still be needed to handle the huge bureaucracy that will be in place?

Honestly is there not a wasteful Federal bureaucracy. One that year by year gets more huge and unwieldly and needs even more money thrown at it?

1=5 % of overhead for a Federal bureaucracy is wishful thinking.

It's the reality. Look it up.

I am and nothing that I have read so far even comes near to this wishful thinking.

Care to share what you read?