Federal Gestapo Services ask good citizens to report any emails about health insurance reform that seem "fishy" to flag@whitehouse.gov

[luckytxn 2,264]

Also I have read 3 times now in different articles that 30% of overhead of insurance companies go toward fraud investigations and of course we have the Dept. Of Justice to do this for Medicare. It is still a cost though but of course it is sent to another department where it is hidden.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh well, this discussion is moot anyway. Health care reform isn't going to pass. So let the left wing nuts rant all they want. Now that the public is paying attention the support for this mess has fallen and will continue to fall.

Yes, and Obama isn't going to win the primaries, let alone the general election. Your crystal ball is bust, Gary, get a refund.

Oh really? I would say your in denial.

SCRAP HEALTH CARE REFORM IF IT ADDS TO DEFICIT,

U.S. VOTERS TELL QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL;

VOTERS DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA’S HANDLING OF HEALTH CARE

Yes, Gary, you told me that then and showed me all these little polls when you made the two predictions I referred to earlier. And see where that got you. Seriously, get a refund for that crystal ball of yours. I'm telling you that as a friend. It just ain't working.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Or just keep trying to bamboozle the koolaid drinking sheep from the truth as usual.

Truth? You wish to talk about the truth? Man, I thought I'd never see this day.

According to the latest annual report of the Medicare board of trustees (these reports are required by law), Medicare spent $431.5 billion dollars in 2007. Of this amount, $6.3 billion was administrative expenditures (or overhead). If we do the math, we determine that Medicare’s overhead was 1.5 percent of its expenditures. Other data presented in the trustees report indicate Medicare’s overhead was about 2 percent throughout this decade, about 2 percent during the 1990s, and about 3 percent in the 1980s.

During the last three or four decades, the comparable figure for health insurance companies has been 20 percent while the comparable figure for self-insured firms has been about 10 percent. I think it is safe to say all reasonable people would agree that 2 percent is “lower” than 20 percent and 10 percent.

Even if you didn’t know these figures, your common sense tells you Medicare’s overhead costs have to be lower than the insurance industry’s. Medicare spends little or nothing on a variety of administrative activities that insurance companies spend substantial sums of money on, including:

* marketing;

* underwriting (which means doing the research necessary to determine applicants’ health histories and whether to insure them and if so at what price);

* making routine use of “utilization review” (aka telling doctors how to practice medicine);

* restricting patients’ choice of provider (it costs money to assemble “networks” of providers that include some providers and exclude others);

* lobbying;

* financing costly salaries and perks for executives; and

* financing profits.

(I consider profit to be a subset of administrative costs, others don’t. Insurance companies typically allocate 3 to 5 percent of their revenues or expenditures to profit.)

Among experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, the 2-percent figure for Medicare is widely (probably universally) accepted. I offer two examples of expert opinion from the conservative side of the health care reform debate: the Lewin Group, and a coalition of organizations and individuals that signed an open letter to Congress in 1999.

The Lewin Group is a consulting firm which is on record criticizing single-payer proponents. It often makes unjustifiably favorable assumptions about the cost-cutting abilities of health insurance companies. It was purchased by United Health Group last year. It uses the 2-percent figure to estimate Medicare’s overhead costs and the overhead costs of Medicare-like systems (cf the Lewin Group’s reports for the states of California and Colorado).

In 1999, a coalition of conservative and middle-of-the road groups and individuals signed an open letter to Congress begging Congress to raise Medicare’s administrative spending level to the level “found in the private sector” so that Medicare would be better equipped to function like a managed care insurance company. The coalition included the Heritage Foundation, the former Health Insurance Association of America (the trade group that represented the non-HMO wing of the health insurance industry), the American Enterprise Institute, the Concord Coalition, and Wellpoint Health Networks.

This coalition stated that Medicare’s overhead was less than 2 percent. Here is how they put it: “The latest report of the Medicare trustees points out that HCFA’s administrative expenses represented only 1 percent of the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund [which finances Part A] and less than 2 percent of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust fund [which at that time financed Part B]” (Heritage Foundation et al., “Open letter to Congress and the executive: Crisis facing HCFA and millions of Americans,” Health Affairs 1999;18(1):8-10, 8). Obviously, the average of these two trust funds comes to less than 2 percent.

Must not have read the articles and links I posted.

I will keep posting a few articles more.

May take a bit as there are so many articles to choose from debunking the Socialist lies.

Well, you can post anything you want to. Until you can show where the private insurance industry is delivering health care more more efficiently than any government in the developed world, they won't mean much. Alas, have you contacted your Congressman yet to ask him to support the Weiner amendment to eliminate the socialist government run scheme that has become known as Medicare? It's out there, urge them to support it.

My Congressman is Ron Paul. How do you think he will vote?

So, Ron Paul supports the elimination of Medicare and the other existing government run socialist health insurance scams?

Yepper. He is a good man and Congressman.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or just keep trying to bamboozle the koolaid drinking sheep from the truth as usual.

Truth? You wish to talk about the truth? Man, I thought I'd never see this day.

According to the latest annual report of the Medicare board of trustees (these reports are required by law), Medicare spent $431.5 billion dollars in 2007. Of this amount, $6.3 billion was administrative expenditures (or overhead). If we do the math, we determine that Medicare’s overhead was 1.5 percent of its expenditures. Other data presented in the trustees report indicate Medicare’s overhead was about 2 percent throughout this decade, about 2 percent during the 1990s, and about 3 percent in the 1980s.

During the last three or four decades, the comparable figure for health insurance companies has been 20 percent while the comparable figure for self-insured firms has been about 10 percent. I think it is safe to say all reasonable people would agree that 2 percent is “lower” than 20 percent and 10 percent.

Even if you didn’t know these figures, your common sense tells you Medicare’s overhead costs have to be lower than the insurance industry’s. Medicare spends little or nothing on a variety of administrative activities that insurance companies spend substantial sums of money on, including:

* marketing;

* underwriting (which means doing the research necessary to determine applicants’ health histories and whether to insure them and if so at what price);

* making routine use of “utilization review” (aka telling doctors how to practice medicine);

* restricting patients’ choice of provider (it costs money to assemble “networks” of providers that include some providers and exclude others);

* lobbying;

* financing costly salaries and perks for executives; and

* financing profits.

(I consider profit to be a subset of administrative costs, others don’t. Insurance companies typically allocate 3 to 5 percent of their revenues or expenditures to profit.)

Among experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, the 2-percent figure for Medicare is widely (probably universally) accepted. I offer two examples of expert opinion from the conservative side of the health care reform debate: the Lewin Group, and a coalition of organizations and individuals that signed an open letter to Congress in 1999.

The Lewin Group is a consulting firm which is on record criticizing single-payer proponents. It often makes unjustifiably favorable assumptions about the cost-cutting abilities of health insurance companies. It was purchased by United Health Group last year. It uses the 2-percent figure to estimate Medicare’s overhead costs and the overhead costs of Medicare-like systems (cf the Lewin Group’s reports for the states of California and Colorado).

In 1999, a coalition of conservative and middle-of-the road groups and individuals signed an open letter to Congress begging Congress to raise Medicare’s administrative spending level to the level “found in the private sector” so that Medicare would be better equipped to function like a managed care insurance company. The coalition included the Heritage Foundation, the former Health Insurance Association of America (the trade group that represented the non-HMO wing of the health insurance industry), the American Enterprise Institute, the Concord Coalition, and Wellpoint Health Networks.

This coalition stated that Medicare’s overhead was less than 2 percent. Here is how they put it: “The latest report of the Medicare trustees points out that HCFA’s administrative expenses represented only 1 percent of the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund [which finances Part A] and less than 2 percent of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust fund [which at that time financed Part B]” (Heritage Foundation et al., “Open letter to Congress and the executive: Crisis facing HCFA and millions of Americans,” Health Affairs 1999;18(1):8-10, 8). Obviously, the average of these two trust funds comes to less than 2 percent.

Must not have read the articles and links I posted.

I will keep posting a few articles more.

May take a bit as there are so many articles to choose from debunking the Socialist lies.

Well, you can post anything you want to. Until you can show where the private insurance industry is delivering health care more more efficiently than any government in the developed world, they won't mean much. Alas, have you contacted your Congressman yet to ask him to support the Weiner amendment to eliminate the socialist government run scheme that has become known as Medicare? It's out there, urge them to support it.

My Congressman is Ron Paul. How do you think he will vote?

So, Ron Paul supports the elimination of Medicare and the other existing government run socialist health insurance scams?

Yepper. He is a good man and Congressman.

Really? How's that sitting with the Seniors, the military and the veterans?

[luckytxn 2,264]

The military and vets and seniors love him a lot. Keep reading up on him to understand why. The elderly here in his district love him and also for a good reason.

Edited August 8, 2009 by luckytxn

[luckytxn 2,264]

Or just keep trying to bamboozle the koolaid drinking sheep from the truth as usual.

Truth? You wish to talk about the truth? Man, I thought I'd never see this day.

According to the latest annual report of the Medicare board of trustees (these reports are required by law), Medicare spent $431.5 billion dollars in 2007. Of this amount, $6.3 billion was administrative expenditures (or overhead). If we do the math, we determine that Medicare’s overhead was 1.5 percent of its expenditures. Other data presented in the trustees report indicate Medicare’s overhead was about 2 percent throughout this decade, about 2 percent during the 1990s, and about 3 percent in the 1980s.

During the last three or four decades, the comparable figure for health insurance companies has been 20 percent while the comparable figure for self-insured firms has been about 10 percent. I think it is safe to say all reasonable people would agree that 2 percent is “lower” than 20 percent and 10 percent.

Even if you didn’t know these figures, your common sense tells you Medicare’s overhead costs have to be lower than the insurance industry’s. Medicare spends little or nothing on a variety of administrative activities that insurance companies spend substantial sums of money on, including:

* marketing;

* underwriting (which means doing the research necessary to determine applicants’ health histories and whether to insure them and if so at what price);

* making routine use of “utilization review” (aka telling doctors how to practice medicine);

* restricting patients’ choice of provider (it costs money to assemble “networks” of providers that include some providers and exclude others);

* lobbying;

* financing costly salaries and perks for executives; and

* financing profits.

(I consider profit to be a subset of administrative costs, others don’t. Insurance companies typically allocate 3 to 5 percent of their revenues or expenditures to profit.)

Among experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, the 2-percent figure for Medicare is widely (probably universally) accepted. I offer two examples of expert opinion from the conservative side of the health care reform debate: the Lewin Group, and a coalition of organizations and individuals that signed an open letter to Congress in 1999.

The Lewin Group is a consulting firm which is on record criticizing single-payer proponents. It often makes unjustifiably favorable assumptions about the cost-cutting abilities of health insurance companies. It was purchased by United Health Group last year. It uses the 2-percent figure to estimate Medicare’s overhead costs and the overhead costs of Medicare-like systems (cf the Lewin Group’s reports for the states of California and Colorado).

In 1999, a coalition of conservative and middle-of-the road groups and individuals signed an open letter to Congress begging Congress to raise Medicare’s administrative spending level to the level “found in the private sector” so that Medicare would be better equipped to function like a managed care insurance company. The coalition included the Heritage Foundation, the former Health Insurance Association of America (the trade group that represented the non-HMO wing of the health insurance industry), the American Enterprise Institute, the Concord Coalition, and Wellpoint Health Networks.

This coalition stated that Medicare’s overhead was less than 2 percent. Here is how they put it: “The latest report of the Medicare trustees points out that HCFA’s administrative expenses represented only 1 percent of the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund [which finances Part A] and less than 2 percent of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust fund [which at that time financed Part B]” (Heritage Foundation et al., “Open letter to Congress and the executive: Crisis facing HCFA and millions of Americans,” Health Affairs 1999;18(1):8-10, 8). Obviously, the average of these two trust funds comes to less than 2 percent.

Must not have read the articles and links I posted.

I will keep posting a few articles more.

May take a bit as there are so many articles to choose from debunking the Socialist lies.

Well, you can post anything you want to. Until you can show where the private insurance industry is delivering health care more more efficiently than any government in the developed world, they won't mean much. Alas, have you contacted your Congressman yet to ask him to support the Weiner amendment to eliminate the socialist government run scheme that has become known as Medicare? It's out there, urge them to support it.

My Congressman is Ron Paul. How do you think he will vote?

So, Ron Paul supports the elimination of Medicare and the other existing government run socialist health insurance scams?

Yepper. He is a good man and Congressman.

Really? How's that sitting with the Seniors, the military and the veterans?

He ran again for Congress this last election and as usual the Socialists didn't even try to run anyone against him so it was just him a well funded GOP flunkie in the primary against him and he won that primary by 80-20 %. It kinda sucked as I had to email the GOP flunkie and apologize for saying he would lose by 90-10%. He did better than some others have done.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The military and vets and seniors love him a lot. Keep reading up on him to understand why. The elderly here in his district love him and also for a good reason.

A lot of the military would be out of a job if Ron had it his way - note that I actually like his positions on ending our excessive worldwide engagements. So, what would the eldely do without Medicare? Sign up with UnitedHealth or Aetna? How will they pay for that? Are seniors in Texas all independently wealthy?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Look you can try to bamboozle everyone as much as possible and it is easy when you have sheep as followers and people that are easy to get addicted to that magic koolaid but the facts stand. Medicare and medicaid has a lot of unreported costs. They do not have to report the buildings they are in or the real estate that is government owned. This is a cost regardless. They have other departments that do the work for them that private companies have to do on their own like the justice department for fraud convictions. The FBI to investigate fraud. They have a government agency that does their forms and publications and sometimes have to report an outside cost when they need a quick paperwork copied or some such. Also there is a government agency that does their audits and the list goes on and on. These are still costs regardless. That is why I also posted the links to show you that if these costs were factored in that they would be higher than private insurers. The private insurers also have to at least compete in a market and the government does not. When ones have to compete then the ones need to try to innovate and be efficient. The government does not.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Look you can try to bamboozle everyone as much as possible and it is easy when you have sheep as followers and people that are easy to get addicted to that magic koolaid but the facts stand. Medicare and medicaid has a lot of unreported costs.

These costs have been considered in the study I posted earlier. And still, the private insurance fares worse.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The military and vets and seniors love him a lot. Keep reading up on him to understand why. The elderly here in his district love him and also for a good reason.

A lot of the military would be out of a job if Ron had it his way - note that I actually like his positions on ending our excessive worldwide engagements. So, what would the eldely do without Medicare? Sign up with UnitedHealth or Aetna? How will they pay for that? Are seniors in Texas all independently wealthy?

Yes the military personnel would be proudly out of a job as we would be more homebound looking than trying to control a world as a policeman.

The elderly are not all stupid. They know that with planning and forward thinking that ones can expect that the last 6 months of someones life is where the most costs of health care come in. They would plan for it and do something about it as they had to do for decades. We went through many years and somehow survived and made it this far. With government taking out of our pocket the money that we could be putting aside for these things ourselves and look for what is best for us personally.

Edited August 8, 2009 by luckytxn

[luckytxn 2,264]

Look you can try to bamboozle everyone as much as possible and it is easy when you have sheep as followers and people that are easy to get addicted to that magic koolaid but the facts stand. Medicare and medicaid has a lot of unreported costs.

These costs have been considered in the study I posted earlier. And still, the private insurance fares worse.

The costs have been factored into the ones I linked you and it showed the government faring worse. Now I can link all night to many more but may have to wait till tomorrow as I will have to get and go have some alone time with my babe but since that usually takes not too long maybe I will come and link more for you again as I have my cig later.

[mawilson 2,133]

i'm amazed that so many of you believe the government can do such a better job and keep costs down. maybe i can sell them some $500 knee reflex hammers.

Medicare has a 3 percent overhead and is 44 years running. Can you top that among private insurance companies?

1) Every dime of the so-called Medicare "cost savings" is passed on to the privately insured

via higher premiums.

2) Medicare is BANKRUPT!!!!

"Madoff took money from newer investors to pay earlier ones, just as Medicare takes money

from current workers to fund the retired. However, Medicare has reached a "Madoff moment"

when income from current workers is less than what is paid out. In other words, Medicare is

bankrupt, and if Medicare was a private company, the government would shut it down because

of insolvency. In its current state, Medicare has an unfunded liability for future retirees of about

45 trillion dollars, which is just about equal the annual World GDP before the recession shrunk it." (link)

[GaryC 7]

i'm amazed that so many of you believe the government can do such a better job and keep costs down. maybe i can sell them some $500 knee reflex hammers.

Medicare has a 3 percent overhead and is 44 years running. Can you top that among private insurance companies?

1) Every dime of the so-called Medicare "cost savings" is passed on to the privately insured

via higher premiums.

2) Medicare is BANKRUPT!!!!

"Madoff took money from newer investors to pay earlier ones, just as Medicare takes money

from current workers to fund the retired. However, Medicare has reached a "Madoff moment"

when income from current workers is less than what is paid out. In other words, Medicare is

bankrupt, and if Medicare was a private company, the government would shut it down because

of insolvency. In its current state, Medicare has an unfunded liability for future retirees of about

45 trillion dollars, which is just about equal the annual World GDP before the recession shrunk it." (link)

And this is better than the way we have it now??? No way the government is getting its hands on my health care!!

[luckytxn 2,264]

i'm amazed that so many of you believe the government can do such a better job and keep costs down. maybe i can sell them some $500 knee reflex hammers.

Medicare has a 3 percent overhead and is 44 years running. Can you top that among private insurance companies?

1) Every dime of the so-called Medicare "cost savings" is passed on to the privately insured

via higher premiums.

2) Medicare is BANKRUPT!!!!

"Madoff took money from newer investors to pay earlier ones, just as Medicare takes money

from current workers to fund the retired. However, Medicare has reached a "Madoff moment"

when income from current workers is less than what is paid out. In other words, Medicare is

bankrupt, and if Medicare was a private company, the government would shut it down because

of insolvency. In its current state, Medicare has an unfunded liability for future retirees of about

45 trillion dollars, which is just about equal the annual World GDP before the recession shrunk it." (link)

And this is better than the way we have it now??? No way the government is getting its hands on my health care!!

The government will get all the health care. The sheep and koolaid drinkers bought it all, hook line and sinker and gave the Socialists total fool proof control in congress. We just witnessed the Socialism of America in the last election. They still think Medicare costs 3% for crying out loud. They are more stupid than we gave them credit for.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh well, this discussion is moot anyway. Health care reform isn't going to pass. So let the left wing nuts rant all they want. Now that the public is paying attention the support for this mess has fallen and will continue to fall.

Yes, and Obama isn't going to win the primaries, let alone the general election. Your crystal ball is bust, Gary, get a refund.

Oh really? I would say your in denial.

SCRAP HEALTH CARE REFORM IF IT ADDS TO DEFICIT,

U.S. VOTERS TELL QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL;

VOTERS DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA’S HANDLING OF HEALTH CARE

Yes, Gary, you told me that then and showed me all these little polls when you made the two predictions I referred to earlier. And see where that got you. Seriously, get a refund for that crystal ball of yours. I'm telling you that as a friend. It just ain't working.

The only poll I trust is the Intrade Prediction Market poll (if you can call it that.) Intrade accurately predicted

Obama's victory months before it happened with a probability of 70%.

Here's how Intrade estimates the chances of "a federal government run health insurance plan

to be approved before midnight ET 31 Dec 2009":

45%, folks. Not looking good.

The contract name is "US.GOVT.HEALTHPLAN.DEC09" for those of you who want to put your money

where your mouth is. If you're 100% sure it'll pass, invest $45 and you will get $100 when the contract

is settled. If you're sure it will fail, sell short a contract for $45 and get $100 when it fails (or pay the

winner $55 otherwise.)

Edited August 8, 2009 by mawilson