So, if doctors can't make as much working for the government, why would they do that? (Then you get the dregs of the doctors providing gov. health care.) If they can make as much working for the government as for themselves, where are the savings? Go Blazers
You get lots of doctors who want to do good deeds so they work for less. They do things like doctors without borders, no? And it's really just a matter of how the doctors get paid. Instead of getting paid $20000 to deliver a baby, the doctor gets paid $1M (flat salary) to deliver all the babies that the mothers come to the hospital to deliver.
Hmmm, I have been following this thread. There seems to be a few things you two are not considering. Gov already has a system set up with the VA, and for all the complaining that goes on it is a great system that works. Also the Doctor that work for the VA are compensated with the best education available under contract for a few years and then are alllowed to do as they please, many stay and raise within the system, and believe it or not, many of the not as guifted end in private practice.
Yeah, I was going to post about the VA. The government has 14,000 VA doctors on staff. What I described is very much like the VA. It competes with the private sector, but doesn't regulate it or force anyone to participate one way or the other. Such a system could offer reduced rates or no rates at all for those who truly can't pay, and make it up with slightly higher rates for everyone else.
dont like the idea of nationalizing or socializing anything..but that is the dirrection this country is heading.you say that a manufacture that sell to the Gov, should only sell to the Gov..not profitable..the only wayto make this work is to nationalize all production and socialize all benifits..
It isn't nationalizing anything. If you want to buy blue cross, you can. If you want to go to a private doctor or hospital or clinic, you can. It's up to you to go to the govt. provider if you choose. I don't see the issue with govt. competing. They compete with retirement plans (Social Security). They compete with health insurance plenty - Medicare, Medicaid, and now ObamaCare. They compete with UPS (USPS). I don't see how the other businesses are at any hardship.
ahhhhh there is another key issue..government competing..when on an even field, they can not with the private sector..because of public unions..so to make it "work" you have to make even the field by government take over.. perfect example is the medicare, medicade and now obomacare all doomed at the present rate of outflow vs income as is SSI..so to fix that , again the Gov has to take over.. Oh, there will be a small very expensive "private practice" that those that can afford will spenda premium to get..like congress, the while house ad many high end gov workers...so, you are correct in thinking that there is a chioce..
Government doesn't have to run a profit, so they might be able to discount things by 10% to 30%. Medicare and Medicaid? They don't charge appropriate fees to cover the costs. It isn't an issue of public unions.
hmmmmm...lesseeee where can we connect all of the dots Gov does not have to make a profit, so you think that they can discount the amount of a average profit margin? say the 30% you suggest.. The Gov does not charge enough to to cover costs.. Costs are driven up by the amount of benifits, and wages that public unions demand, almost twice the amount that private sector recieves.. so to make up for the monies required to fund these programs...what do you think...higher taxes? control the costs, like rent control? or take over the production ie health care industry ? Kindof where we are heading right now..the big winner and the only thing that keeps this from being in place already is the insurance industry...they want to survive with high profits in tact, and continue to act as the middle man..
I think the govt. charges for people to get flu shots, surgeries, etc., at their hospitals and clinics. Enough to pay the cost of those things - the medicine, building upkeep, salaries, etc. The only place for insurance companies in this scheme is when people want to pay for it and negotiate their own care with private physicians. My guess is that 5/6th of the system would be private.
hmm they may for some..I know that for vets it depends on the era of service, much like the collage benifits upon entering service. For many low income vets there is zero costs, and they will take care of many ailments with the exception of dental ( and I find this to be odd, as many hart ailmants are proven to be dental related, and a set of dentures is far cheeper than sugery) and face it, insurance companies should be required to follow truth in advertising requirements, they should anly be seen with eye patches and parrots on thier collective shoulders.
I think insurance should cover catastrophic illness. Everything else, people should pay out of pocket. When everyone has to shop around, they'll find the least expensive services and competition would drive down prices.
Are you saying the Post Office serves only the government, or are you saying it serves only private parties? The estimates I've seen say the opposite, that putting more privatization into Medicare will increase cost to consumer. I've read them for both health care and privatized social security, which Republicans also want. As for liquor, I now have to drive a couple of miles instead of 1 block. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2012/12/privatizing_liquor_sales_in_wa.html
Why is auto insurance cheap? I see ads on TV for about 6 companies all claiming to save you money over the others. Why isn't that going on with health insurance? Heck, life insurance is pretty cheap, too, and everyone dies (guaranteed payouts as big as expensive surgeries). And yes, like the Post Office. Govt. owned private business that pays its own way (in theory).
well, auto insurance is seen as an entry product.. the real money in insurance is in the life, accident and health arm.. oh, and not to be an ass, but we both know haw the post office bleeds money (again, a public union)
The govt. is sucking the cash flow from the USPS. It's not bleeding money. If you run me over with your car and I sue you for $1M and win, the insurance company is making a bigger payout than for all but a few medical situations (health insurance). Probably because of severe injuries. Why should health insurance cost so much more?
by making USPS fund its own retirement plan, if that is "sucking the cash flow" well yeah they are paying for years of piss poor management, and by all rights should have closed years ago yeah the 1M law suite is like a limited term policy low risk high profit health and whole life are the money makers for those companies
Looks to me like they're being forced to fund it up front, instead of contributing to a 401K-like thing done everywhere else.
that was a result of how they allowed payouts of retirement and benifits to get out of hand and had unfunded promises that the Gov would have had to pick if the USPS were to file BK so to speak..once again a result of bad management and the greed of the public labor union
The Inspector General audited the USPS retirement fund and there's a $13.1B surplus there, and they've been running a surplus since 1992. I don't see why USPS is being forced to maintain such a big surplus, or even a bigger one if they're able to make their pension payments. At the very least, they should be able to raise the price of postage to cover their bills. http://www.uspsoig.gov/foia_files/RARC-WP-13-001.pdf
