Thursday, October 8, 2009

You Really Want the Government Controlling Your Health Care?

The democrats who are pushing the government controlled universal health care gloat about the success of Medicare. Of course they assume most people like Medicare, however there are people coming out against it lately (ie on Cavuto's show the other day).

One of the many reasons people like myself are uncomfortable with the government controlling health care is the possibility of health care rationing, where the government decides when it is "cost effective" to cover people, and when it is not. Medicare, this supposed "wonderful system," is denying claims at a faster rate than any private insurance company.

Here is a chart comparing Medicare and private insurance companies (from http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/05/ama-endorses-largest-denier-of-health-care-claims/):



30 comments:

Kevin Jackson said...

Oh boy, now you've god me going.... ;)

Medicare AND Social security are huge ripoffs. I would give up all claims to both in a heart beat, if I could opt out of the programs. It would be equivalent to a 15.3% raise. And I guarantee that I have the discipline and could beat the rate of return if I invested the money myself. Social Security effectively earns about 2% The stock market earns 12% a year, including down turns. Add to the fact that I'd actually have the money, instead of an government IOU.

Check this out: say a person earns 40K a year for 45 years (roughly the average wage). That's $6,120.00 a year (15.3%). Compounded over 45 years and with only a 10% return (the stock market averages 12%, including down years) and I would have just short of $5 Million of MY OWN MONEY at retirement. Instead I -might- get a check for 2k or 3k a year, if the goverment hasn't gone bankrupt by then. And nothing for my kids when I die. That is the price of "security".

Kevin Jackson said...

opps that got. Sorry God.

bossmanham said...

Wow, Kevin. Great info! I had never imagined it was that bad.

Froggie said...

KJ,
And so following your comment to it's logical conclusion you would then step over the bodies of those less fortunate?
What if you become disabled?

Froggie said...

Perhaps KJ would like to engage in a bit of "retranslation" of the bible and get rid of that liberal notion that loving one's neighbor encapsulates the whole of the law and the prophets.

bossmanham said...

Froggie,

It's not about not wanting to provide for people who can't provide for themselves. As Kevin points out, individuals would be better at budgeting for these occurences than the government. If social security and medicare were eliminated, we'd have 15% more money. We would be able to better invest this, not only for our own profit, but we would also have more money to provide charities and other organizations that help people who truly are disabled.

If Kevin himself were injured, he would have money saved up to take care of himself.

Don't let your emotions contol you.

Kevin Jackson said...

Froggie, That's why they sell life insurance and disability insurance, which I also purchase.

I trust myself more than the government. Besides, it's my money they're taking to "help" me. Bottom line is the government could even mandate life insurance and retirement savings, and that would still give all the benefits that you're concerned about. And it would be preferable to them them taking my money and spending it immediately like they do now.

Social Security is nothing more than a legal ponzi scheme - Bernie Madoff, big government style. There is no "Trust fund" anymore. They spent that long ago, and now are just racking up more debt. Just a bunch of IOUs. And I'm supposed to trust these guys with my retirement? They can't even balance a budget.

Froggie said...

Oh! So your churches will provide for needy people?

Which church? Who decides who gets help and who doesn't? You? Vote of the members? The pastor?

Will you help a person of a different or no denomination? If you take that over for the government you don't think you will have administration costs? Overhead?

Having churches distribute charity would be a study in cluster fluster just as we see that no two Christian sects in this country can even agree on biblical interpretations.

Why are so many people without health care not being helped by the churches now?

What will you do with the people that make a great salary but only put fifty cents on the collection plate on Sunday? Shun them?

Since we are guaranteed our freedom of conscience by the constitution would you support an atheist that lost his health care?

You do know that there are many young adults that cannot afford health and disability insurance don't you?

What if your investment in the stock market tanks? What if the stocks you buy go belly up?
What if you lose one insurance and another rejects you pre-existing condition?

You guys are too young to know the pitfalls ahead of you and you have no authority outside your fractured little church group.
I'd love to see your business plan on how you would accomplish administering social programs through your churches.

The different Christian sects would be at war trying to gain dominion over each other to hold the power to control how the money would be spent.

Before any further discussion perhaps you should think about signing a Socialism free purity pledge.

Socialist-Free Purity Pledge
I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:
I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:
Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
Unemployment Insurance
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
The US Railway System
Public Subways and Metro Systems
Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
Rest Areas on Highways
Sidewalks
All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009federal senate appropriations–http://grassley.senate.gov/issues/upload/Master-Approps-73109.pdf)
Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

Froggie said...

(cont'd)

Public and State Universities and Colleges
Public Primary and Secondary Schools
Sesame Street
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Public Museums
Libraries
Public Parksand Beaches
State and National Parks
Public Zoos
Unemployment Insurance
Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, Stateor Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)
Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD’s ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies
If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forego my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care
I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist
locations, including but not limited to:
Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History
The socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments
The government-operated Statue of Liberty
The Grand Canyon
The socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials
The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery
All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC
I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forego their government salary and government-provided healthcare.
I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America.
I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army.
I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees.
Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks.
Upon reaching age 65, I will forego Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die.
SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____________ IN THE YEAR ______________.


Sign that pledge and we can talk

Kevin Jackson said...

Froggie, The stock market has a better proven track record than the government. The stock market has NEVER gone down over a 10 year period (including the great depression). If it does tank for some reason, there is no reason to think the government will be able to continue business as usual either. I have complete confidence that the stock market will average more than 2% over the next 40 years. It will beat Social Security hands down.

The problem is your comparison is a worst case scenario compared to a Utopian government scenario that isn't grounded in reality.

The government can't even balance a budget. And now you want to give them trillions more? It's like the guy who has no discipline and goes out and spends all he can, borrows all he can, and then hits the payday loan place to get more money. His problem is not a lack of money, and more money won't fix the problem. It will make it worse. His problem is a lack of discipline.

Would you trust that guy to manage your retirement funds?

So it is with the government. They run huge deficit's, bloated programs, and are incompetent. I don't trust them. I don't want them to have my retirement money. I don't want them making my health care decisions. They don't have a proven track record.

How about a compromise? I'll trust the government with my health care and retirement the day they learn how to balance their budget and run a surplus. Right now they're running trillion dollar deficits, and hitting China up for payday loans.

I have a proven track record. Every month I balance my personal budget and save. I'm smarter than the government, and I bet you are too.

bossmanham said...

Oh! So your churches will provide for needy people?

Yeah. Guess what! We have empirical evidence of this happening *gasp!* And you obviously haven't heard of the Salvation Army or the hundreds of other Christian charities.

Which church? Who decides who gets help and who doesn't? You? Vote of the members? The pastor?

Whomever the church decides. Better them then the feds. Churches don't typically turn people down.

Will you help a person of a different or no denomination?

I can't speak for everyone, but I would, if that person truly needed help. Denominational splits aren't that big of an issue anymore. But, despite your acting like you do, you know nothing about the church because you don't leave your fractured group of fellow atheists to actually associate with people of faith.

If you take that over for the government you don't think you will have administration costs? Overhead?

Again, you seem to be ignorant of the Salvation Army.

Having churches distribute charity would be a study in cluster fluster just as we see that no two Christian sects in this country can even agree on biblical interpretations

You know, you are really the master of irrelevant statements. Furthermore, there are atheists who can't agree on the interpretation of their empirical evidence. You're just hoisting up this silly red herring you seem to think constitutes a valid argument. You just sound ignorant.

Why are so many people without health care not being helped by the churches now?

What's your evidence of this? Most of the churches in my community maintain a fund to help needy people, and I have a friend who has been given money by the church.

What will you do with the people that make a great salary but only put fifty cents on the collection plate on Sunday?

Another irrelevant question.

Since we are guaranteed our freedom of conscience by the constitution would you support an atheist that lost his health care?

1) There is no such language in the US constitution. 2) I would. 3) But it's not my decision. 4) If a church denied said atheist, they would be going against the teachings of Christ.

You do know that there are many young adults that cannot afford health and disability insurance don't you?

Then they need to get a job. I am said young person in college full time and work part time and can afford insurance.

What if your investment in the stock market tanks? What if the stocks you buy go belly up?
What if you lose one insurance and another rejects you pre-existing condition?


All irrelevant. I think the insurance companies should not be allowed to consider preexisting conditions. They wouldn't have to if we allowed people to buy health insurance over state lines. The competition between the companies wouldn't allow it. And prices would go down. Less regulation, not more.

You guys are too young to know the pitfalls ahead of you and you have no authority outside your fractured little church group.

Ageism and religious discrimination?

Again, you show that you cannot resist jumping to faulty conclusions. The constitution gives the responsibility of some of those things you listed to the government. Other things it does not. Infrastructure is something the govt should run. Many of the things you listed are not organizations I would be proud of.

Kevin Jackson said...

BTW Froggie, consider actually interacting with what we say instead of posting large chunks of garbage from Daily Kos. Think for yourself.

Froggie said...

I've seen the dirty politics in more churches than you two have ever been in and you say, "trust us."

I've seen more money ripped off by church members that in any business I've ever been associated with.


Yeah, riiiiiight. No contract, no legal recourse.

This is the most arrogant, irrational baloney I've seen in a while. Ha!

Who do you think you are fooling?

bossmanham said...

Nice hasty generalization fallacy. Followed up by a purely unbacked assertion. Good job.

Froggie said...

Your comment was irrelevent.

Froggie said...

Boss,
When I say that someone would be crazy to risk their personal and family welfare on some evangelical church with ny contract or legal recourse, how is that a generalization fallacy?

You hve this bad habit of avoiding tough questions by waving them off as "irrelevent," etc.

I also asked pointed questions of how certain welfare or social programs would be administered by churches and you ignore them.

It seems that your view is so narrow that you cannot function on any other level of argument.

There is no way anyone in their right mine is going to trade their security from the full faith and credit of the Unites States government to some corner church in podunk, Kentucky.
It is painfully obvious over the last two hundred years that churches come and go, businesses come and go and guess what, our government and our constitution which defines our rights are still there in all it's secularity.

When I stated that there is dirty politics and corruption in churches you ignore it, but it is there and it is well shown that "Christians" are just as capable of evil as any other segment of the population. Or are you one of those Christians that claims your fringe minority sect is the only one true Christian church?

If that is true then do you want to make your church some priesthood class who dispenses security to less fortunate based on messages you recieve from God?

In reality what you want to do is to create a theocracy, in which case our social mosel would be more like Iran than a free country.

Give me a break.

Froggie said...

KJ,
The location of the souce of the list of social programs I listed does not invalidate the fact that they are all social programs that you take advantage of.

You committed the poison the well fallacy.

Froggie said...

OK. For our next lesson lil buddies-

In case you didn't know, the framers of our founding document, the Constitution of the United States of America, knew very well that the spirit of religious freedom was in the front of the minds of many of the colonists. They also understood the enlightenment was taking root on American soil with notables such as Thomas Paine.

They understood this very well and they knew that they were dealing with thirteen mini-theocracies. They knew and they articulated that they understood it would be suicide to a united government to allow any religious sect to gain dominion over any other- that all religions and beliefs and world views including the freedom to speak our conscience on any matter whatsoever was the only way that the colonies could unify as an entity strong enough to protect itself from the other more powerful nations.

They knew very well that if religion started to intrude on the government there would be perpetual quarelling and possible wars over religious domination of the government between the vastly different sects, the Puritans of New England, the Quakers of PA, the Anglicans of the Virginians and so forth.

That is what produced this great country. E Pluribus Unum was their motto. Not the bible. For your edification I will assure you that the bible was a guide for many of the early colonists but not so much for the commom good as you like us to believe. After all, the bible prompted the witchcraft trials and the perpetuation of slavery, the subjugation of women and other minorities.

Only three of the Ten Commandments are embodied in the Constitution or any laws of the land, so anyone that tells you our laws are based on the Ten Commandments are far from objective or learned on the subject.

It is the Constitution that protects even you fringe fundamentalists from oppression of the majority and this system has survived and served us very well.

Next, since it seems as if you would piss on the graves of the hundreds of thousands of men and women that gave their lives and continue to give their lives to keep you free, based on the oath they have taken to protect the Constitution, I am symbolically pissing on the doorstep of this narrow minded, government hating blog as I bid you adeiu.

Your total dismissal of any idea whatsoever not aligned with your petty, narrowminded and myopic views is absurd beyond description and since you serve exclusively as an organ of one fringe religious sect, there is no need for any further input from me.

It is obvious that you stick your fingers in your ears rather than persue honest discourse and you will stoop to any rhetorical debauchery rather than see your idiotic beliefs go up in the smoke of reason.

You are totally unprepared to honor others freedom of speech and this is a perfect examole of why we see this groundswell opposing right wing religious political aspirations.

Fare thee well,
Respectfully Submitted,
Froggie

bossmanham said...

When I say that someone would be crazy to risk their personal and family welfare on some evangelical church with ny contract or legal recourse, how is that a generalization fallacy?

Because you said, "I've seen the dirty politics in more churches than you two have ever been in and you say, "trust us."

I've seen more money ripped off by church members that in any business I've ever been associated with."

You are saying because you saw dirty politics in churches (I'm taking your word for it) and have seen money ripped off in church, you can't and shouldn't trust any church. The insinuation is they are all corrupt since you've seen an example or two that are corrupt. Hence--a hasty generalization.

You hve this bad habit of avoiding tough questions by waving them off as "irrelevent," etc.

I could answer most of the irrelevant questions but I don't want this conversation to go off into 500 different directions. It's just a diversionary tactic.

There is no way anyone in their right mine is going to trade their security from the full faith and credit of the Unites States government to some corner church in podunk, Kentucky.

Yes, the government is doing a wonderful job at gaining trust.

When I stated that there is dirty politics and corruption in churches you ignore it, but it is there and it is well shown that "Christians" are just as capable of evil as any other segment of the population.

So what!? This is irrelevant to the discussion! I'm have to keep pointing this out. This doesn't help your point or attack mine. There are dirty crooks in the government too, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

In reality what you want to do is to create a theocracy, in which case our social mosel would be more like Iran than a free country.

All I can say is facepalm. ;)

that all religions and beliefs and world views including the freedom to speak our conscience on any matter whatsoever was the only way that the colonies could unify as an entity strong enough to protect itself from the other more powerful nations.

Why are you even bringing this up? No one is arguing otherwise. That's why the puritans came to America.

After all, the bible prompted the witchcraft trials and the perpetuation of slavery, the subjugation of women and other minorities.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Only three of the Ten Commandments are embodied in the Constitution or any laws of the land, so anyone that tells you our laws are based on the Ten Commandments are far from objective or learned on the subject.

I still don't see how this is relevant to the health care debate, and shows your silliness.

Next, since it seems as if you would piss on the graves of the hundreds of thousands of men and women...

Since I have not promoted what you are arguing against, I'm not sure how you can say that.

You are totally unprepared to honor others freedom of speech and this is a perfect examole of why we see this groundswell opposing right wing religious political aspirations.

Froggy, how about this. It's obvious you hate Christians and Christianity. So with that knowledge, I infer that you want to stick Christians in concentration camps and kill them.

That's what you're doing, Froggie! Making false conclusions based on nothing we have said. I don't do that to you. Why are you doing it to me?

Kevin Jackson said...

Froggie, you have yet to interact with any of the factual data. Why should I invest my money in a worthless mandatory retirement program at 2% a when the market averages 12% a year? I can beat 2% with my eyes closed. Why should I give my retirement money to the government when they're spending it right now instead of saving actually saving it for my retirement? They have not lived up to their end of the contract, and have lost my trust.

The government has a failed track record. They can't balance a budget and are well on the way to insolvency. It is stupid to give them more authority. Instead, it is time to take some authority back.

I save money every month, and successfully balance a budget. I have a proven track record. Please explain again why the government has the right to take my freedom and give me nothing but IOUs in return.

The problem with your daily kos paste is that it doesn't distinguish between the roles that we voluntarily succeed to government, and those that we do not. The fact that I can't build my own roads or run my own army is irrelevant to whether or not I can save for my own retirement.

I say I can save for retirement. I can also determine where I want to live, what God I want to worship (or not), whom I'm going to marry, where I'm going to live, how many kids I'm going to have, what job I want to do, what doctor I want to go to, etc.

Do you want the government to determine who you marry? There are some people who want to get married and never find a spouse. That isn't fair. Maybe the government should shut down e-harmony, and set up a mandatory partner service.

Do you want the government to determine how many children you have? Socialist China does that, and it works out pretty well for them.

Do you want the government to determine where you live? Some people have to live in Erie, PA. That isn't fair now, is it?

Do you want the government to determine what job you do? Some people have to clean outhouses, others don't even have a job. That isn't fair.

Do you want the government to determine where you go to school, and what classes you take? Maybe Uncle Sam knows better than you do, and can pick your future for you.

There is a very real possibility that the government can handle all of these roles better than you can. If your daily kos paste is correct, the government has the right to decide all those things for you. After all, they build roads. That proves they can pick your marriage partner too, right?

See, there are spheres of freedom that we have as individuals that the government has no business messing with. It is not their right.

I have individual freedom that I refuse to give to the government. Even if I might fail, I'm willing to take that risk. It is an infringement of freedom for the government to usurp my individual freedom on these issues.

It's called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Debunkey Monkey said...

There are millions of Americans without health insurance. Are there religious or charity organizations that currently offer dental and health insurance to the poor and disabled?

Froggie said...

Har har!

OK! Anyone who is not fortunate enough to do as well as the Oh so great people talking here should be let to starve; better yet, euthanize them post haste!

Everybody on their own!

Oh, why have a society at all?

Froggie said...

DM,

Don't worry, the "churches" will help them! You must trust the church!

Froggie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Froggie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Froggie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Froggie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Froggie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig said...

Kevin Jackson said...

Why should I invest my money in a worthless mandatory retirement program at 2% a when the market averages 12% a year?

Kevin,

I don't know where you come up with 12% a year. There was a period from 1973 to 1993 when the market averaged 11% annually. That wouldn't mean you would have seen an 11% return on your investment. Unless you owned individual stocks (not a fund) that were not price indexed, each stock grew at the avg. or more, no stock was overvalued and price-earning ratios were at historic averages. If you could do that you'd be omniscient.

For perspective, if you had invested your money in the stock market on 9/7/1929 it would have taken until Sept. 1954 to break even.

Social Security was never meant to be an investment vehicle, it's insurance against losing it all in old age. It's been enormously successful.

If you think privatization makes sense you should read Nobel economist, Paul Krugman's analysis. This was written in 2005, long before the Bush economic meltdown,

Schemes for Social Security privatization, like the one described in the 2004 Economic Report of the President, invariably assume that investing in stocks will yield a high annual rate of return, 6.5 or 7 percent after inflation, for at least the next 75 years. Without that assumption, these schemes can't deliver on their promises. Yet a rate of return that high is mathematically impossible unless the economy grows much faster than anyone is now expecting.
Full column at www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1.

As for the claim denial chart. It makes no distinction between Plan A, Plan B or Medicare Advantage. Claims may have been denied for those whose supplemental plans pick up the cost. The donut hole in Part D drug reimbursement is another factor.

Don't forget that no one is denied coverage for a preexisting condition. No one is dropped from coverage for not reporting a visit to the dermatologist when they were in the 8th grade. Medicare covers everyone in the population of those most needing health care.
The chart is irrelevant.

Since what is being proposed is a public OPTION for ins., (it's not a gov. takeover of health care)if it's as crappy as you say Medicare is, no one will opt for it. What's the problem?

Satisfaction with Medicare: 93%
Satisfaction with private ins.: 78%(unless you actually use it).

bossmanham said...

Froggie, I told you not to cuss, but your position is so weak that you can't seem to do otherwise. You're obviously an unstable person that cannot keep their emotions in check. You know there's a God, but something happened that made you angry with Him. It doesn't matter, you're allowed no more comments. I hope and pray you realize your own depravity, soften your heart, and come to Christ, because as of now His wrath is upon you.