Are you for or against government healthcare - Page 15 - Politics and Economics

No problem. I knew I heard someone make those same claims about administrative costs before. Pretty sure you were corrected then as well.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...l#post28408779

01-20-2012 , 08:38 PM

#352

Fedorfan

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,928

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkholdem

That's nice. Now how about instead of focusing on this, which is actually side stepping the issue/point you go ahead and address the overall post?

how bout this?

Quote:

Administrative costs

Whenever you encounter “research” from the Heritage Foundation, you always have to bear in mind that Heritage isn’t really a think tank; it’s a propaganda shop. Everything it says is automatically suspect.

Greg Mankiw forgets this rule, and approvingly (yes, it’s obvious he approves -no wiggling out) links to a recent Heritage attempt to explain away Medicare’s low administrative costs:

Quote:

Well, whaddya know — this is an old argument, and has been thoroughly refuted. Jacob Hacker:

These administrative spending numbers have been challenged on the grounds that they exclude some aspects of Medicare’s administrative costs, such as the expenses of collecting Medicare premiums and payroll taxes, and because Medicare’s larger average claims because of its older enrollees make its administrative costs look smaller relative to private plan costs than they really are.

However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.

(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.)

The CBO study suggests that even in the context of basic insurance reforms, such as guaranteed issue and renewability, private plans’ administrative costs are higher than the administrative costs of public insurance. The experience of private plans within FEHBP carries the same conclusion. Under FEHBP, the administrative costs of Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) average 7 percent, not counting the costs of federal agencies to administer enrollment of employees. Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) participating in FEHBP have administrative costs of 10 to 12 percent.

In international perspective, the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance, with its diverse billing and review practices

You should always remember:

1. Don’t believe anything Heritage says.

2. If you find what Heritage is saying plausible, remember rule 1.

01-20-2012 , 08:52 PM

#353

Fedorfan

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,928

Despite competition and choice in the private insurance system, Medicare spending has grown more slowly than private insurance premiums for comparable coverage for more than 30 years.

Quote:

From 1970 to 2009, Medicare spending per beneficiary grew by an average of 1 percentage point less each year than comparable private insurance premiums. Between 2000 and 2009, Medicare’s cost advantage was even larger – its spending per beneficiary grew at an average annual rate of 5.1 percent while per-capita premiums for private health insurance plans grew at 7.2 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In inflation-adjusted terms, Medicare spending per beneficiary increased more than 400 percent between 1969 and 2009 while private insurance premiums increased by more than 700 percent.

What explains Medicare’s sustained cost advantage over private insurance? Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance (administrative costs account for about 14 percent of health care spending, or a whopping $360 billion a year).

And Medicare has considerable negotiating leverage with providers as a result of its huge enrollment. Private insurance plans are unable to negotiate payment rates with providers that are as low as Medicare’s rates, even though Medicare’s negotiating authority is tightly limited and often undermined by Congress.

Last edited by Fedorfan; 01-20-2012 at 09:01 PM.

01-20-2012 , 09:02 PM

#354

74Offsuit

old hand

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,383

This efficiency tangent smells like a red herring to me. The idea that if you slash medical & social programs then suddenly charity will step in with hundreds of billions a year is quite frankly, absurd.

01-20-2012 , 09:21 PM

#355

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

Fedorfan, the article has sites and it delineates very specific figures. It's a logical phallusy to dismiss something because you find the person/place behind it to be suspect. Either the info is accurate or it is not. It looks accurate to me and the there is a bibliography or whatever they are called to back up specific points. I drew that info from 2 different places. So your post doesn't change anything.

Analyse the points and if they are wrong they are wrong. I have no reason to believe they are. Do you have something that refutes it? It is refuting the commonly held false notion that medicaid's admin cost's are like 3% and it explains why they come up with this figure and why it is misleading. Did you read the article? Are you able to look at the post with an open mind? If not I really don't want to be discussing politics with people who have a belief and then when those beliefs are shown to be not accurate the person keeps their eyes closed to the truth.

01-20-2012 , 09:23 PM

#356

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedorfan

Despite competition and choice in the private insurance system, Medicare spending has grown more slowly than private insurance premiums for comparable coverage for more than 30 years.

This means nothing unless you can refute the new information that I posted here that shows exactly how and why info on medicaids admin costs are misleading and either by mistake or on purpose not accurately looked at.

01-20-2012 , 09:55 PM

#357

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by 74Offsuit

It's not really a red herring - since if you can prove that charitys aren't more efficient you automatically prove the argument that cutting government social services isn't a good idea (from a practical point of view - I get that some people have a problem with the "theft" of money by the government).

Of course, they have to also show what you're saying - which is that people will voluntarily contribute enough money to provide an adequate safety net. There seems to be no evidence of this either.

01-20-2012 , 10:38 PM

#358

bkholdem

banned

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 6,055

Luckily since this thread is about whether or not your for or against gov't healthcare and since I have shown clear evidence that gov't sucks by having their administrative costs much more than private insurance's admin costs we now are clear on the fact that gov't can not deliever the same health insurance services as private companies without charging more for doing so.

And then you get to add in the fact that gov't threatens people with death and jail if they happen to fight having their money stolen from them.

And we also know that gov't charges poor people in order to subsidize those who have higher incomes with health insurance.

But sure, they are proably MORE efficient in all other area's even if they stink in this area....

01-20-2012 , 11:17 PM

#359

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkholdem

Lol, you didn't show this. The details of your link even dispute the claim you're making. And again, you manage to ignore the efficiency of a whole bunch of other countries in the world that spend less and have more government intervention.

01-20-2012 , 11:21 PM

#360

surftheiop

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 5,162

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkholdem

Check out the chart from wiki the 2nd to the far right column is the most damning to the US system from an economic standpoint (not to mention the 2nd column for a quality standpoint),

The US government spends a HIGHER percent of our revenue on healthcare than countries that have actual socialized medicine. So paradoxically it seems that government paying for MORE peoples healthcare actually may decreased the total cost to government.

01-20-2012 , 11:59 PM

#361

Fedorfan

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,928

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkholdem

Why do you refute to answer any of the basic questioned asked for why the US is doing worse in most metrics compared to all the other 1st world mixed market economies with UHC/single payer? And why it seems clear that in spite of having a larger element of free market in our health care system, we are doing worse in most measurable ways comparatively...

for instance:

Quote:

Originally Posted by surftheiop

Check out the chart from wiki the 2nd to the far right column is the most damning to the US system from an economic standpoint (not to mention the 2nd column for a quality standpoint),

01-21-2012 , 02:04 AM

#362

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

This thread has a familiar repeat theme:

1. bk makes some ridiculous unsupported assertions, refuses to cite any
2. a bunch of people reply with charts and facts with actual citations
3. bk ignores all arguments and simply repeats the same obtuse arguments he's been making the whole thread for 5 or 6 rambly posts in a row
4. bk copy-and-pastes a few 75775433 word articles from mises
5. sane posters get worn out and quit thread
6. pvn lobs a few non-reply snark grenades
7. Repeat #1

01-21-2012 , 05:12 AM

#363

dinopoker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,437

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkholdem

GG credibility.

01-21-2012 , 06:39 AM

#364

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,262

Quote:

Originally Posted by surftheiop

Check out the chart from wiki the 2nd to the far right column is the most damning to the US system from an economic standpoint (not to mention the 2nd column for a quality standpoint),

I am guessing the lawyers that litigate health care issues get paid something.

01-21-2012 , 06:48 AM

#365

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,262

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

What is an adequate safety net? If the government provides a larger safety net, that means that resources that would be more highly valued in another use are being diverted to health care.

Without a market, how does the health czar decide how much should be spent on research?

01-21-2012 , 10:12 AM

#366

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by RR

What is an adequate safety net? If the government provides a larger safety net, that means that resources that would be more highly valued in another use are being diverted to health care.

Yeah, I knew that ("adequate safety net") was a poor choice of words. I believe adequate safety net is a personal value judgement - not a market decision and I believe the current safety nets provided by governments is much closer to what I believe is necessary than we would ever get with private charity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RR

Without a market, how does the health czar decide how much should be spent on research?

I don't think anybody is advocating a complete lack of a market. Once again I refer you to the many countries that have UHC but still manage to have lots of companies doing research and creating profits.

And, of course, you can also use things like wait times to ration health services or decide where more money needs to be invested.

01-21-2012 , 11:35 AM

#367

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

2.5 suzzer makes a bunch of posts replying to some imaginary posts that nobody actually made

01-21-2012 , 11:48 AM

#368

lagdonk

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,861

6.5 pvn sums up the whole politics forum if you replace 'suzzer' with 'everyone'

duuude, all of us are suzzer, dude

01-21-2012 , 02:17 PM

#369

dinopoker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,437

Quote:

Originally Posted by RR

I am guessing the lawyers that litigate health care issues get paid something.

There's malpractice litigation in UHC countries too, bro.

01-21-2012 , 06:22 PM

#370

jogsxyz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,362

Can some one explain how life expectancy is calculated? 78.1 ages for the U.S. Does that mean half of all Americans born in 1934 are still alive? Or a baby born in 2012 can expect to live to 2090?

01-21-2012 , 06:47 PM

#371

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+life+expectancy+calculated

01-21-2012 , 06:56 PM

#372

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,262

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

There's malpractice litigation in UHC countries too, bro.

How do the costs associated with this compare with the costs in the US? I suspect (I am sure someone has data to confirm or deny this suspicion) that this is a factor in the cost difference between the US and the rest of the word.

01-21-2012 , 06:57 PM

#373

Jonny El

adept

Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 810

Quote:

Originally Posted by surftheiop

Check out the chart from wiki the 2nd to the far right column is the most damning to the US system from an economic standpoint (not to mention the 2nd column for a quality standpoint),

So basically you're saying that it's stupid to call the US system an example of a privatized system when they spend more than most countries with UHC.

01-21-2012 , 06:58 PM

#374

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

Quote:

Originally Posted by RR

It's been posted on this forum many times that malpractice insurance is a drop in the bucket wrt to our spiraling health care costs. If you admit that it would matter, I will look that up for you with multiple citations. If you're just gonna wave it off anyway I'm not going to put out the effort.

01-21-2012 , 07:01 PM

#375

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,262

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Yeah, I knew that ("adequate safety net") was a poor choice of words. I believe adequate safety net is a personal value judgement - not a market decision and I believe the current safety nets provided by governments is much closer to what I believe is necessary than we would ever get with private charity.

You do realize that there are problems with wanting to force your personal value judgement on to others don't you? If others shared your value judgment the market would provide the same safety net as your value judgment.

Page 15 of 49

First

5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 25 35

Last

...

Page 15 of 49

First

5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 25 35

Last