Since the administrative costs for large government programs like Social Security and Medicare have Administrative costs of ~6%, That means a federal takeover of health insurance would probably immediately reduce health care costs by 10% to 15%.

So much for private competition lowering costs. So much for the private sector doing things cheaper than government.

Even at the 80% level, private health insurers are finding they aren't spending enough on health care (or are overcharging those of us with private health insurance). They will be refunding over $1 billion as a result of Obama-care.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12525490- affordable-care-act-means-11-billion-insurance-rebate?lite

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Sure. Quarter military spending. Stop all foreign aid. Close all military bases outside of US territory.

Use that money to bring in something like what the rest of the first world has.

Repeal assinine drug laws that put users and minor dealers into jail. Jail is teh expensive yo. Repeal any law that has an adverse economic effect, like death penalty laws. Stop all subsidies by the DoA. Close all tax loopholes and come down very hard on people hiding income in the Caymans or somewhere.

Stop expensive and useless blockade of Cuba and other nations. Build that damn pipeline. Get people to work fixing America's dilapidated infrastructure, and so on.

If Americans were serious about not raising taxes there's plenty of fat to cut. In my opinion, paying some more taxes and doing things that are generally painless for 99% of people, like closing tax loopholes, is probably better, but hey.

---

Believe it or not, I actually agree with every one of those things, Volcanon. Sadly though, it amounts to political suicide for any Senator or House memeber to even suggest. We're so ingrained that cutting military spending = hurting soldiers and cutting Ag subsidies = oppressing poor farmers, etc., it's almost taboo.

I think my major hesitancy with a UHC system comes down to timeliness and quality of care. Let me explain:

I work for a global company. We have a number of international reps that I have almost daily contact with. Additionally, I see any number of them every couple months or so, and we're always sure to get together and have a few drinks wherever we are. It's great to just sit and shoot the breeze with these guys, but one of the things that's come up a number of times is health care in their respective countries. Those that come from places with UHC hate it. Absolutely hate it. Maybe they've just had bad experiences, but when you get to sit and have a beer with someone, you appreciate their experiences and thoughts far greater than any political BS coming from either side of the aisle. They complain about constantly having to wait months for appointments, being turned down arbitrarily for procedures the government deems "unnecessary", or just generally having crappy doctors. And while it's certainly no rose garden here, I don't have those problems (other than the occasional quack). One of our reps in Ontario told me he wished Canada would declare war on the US and then surrender before a shot was fired, just so he could stop having to run the border to see a doctor sometime before Christmas. Our European guys always comment that they love not having to pay, but would prefer to be able to pay to get something a little better or sooner.

For one, the grass is always greener on the other side, and many people will think their own system is worse. The reality is that no system in the World provides immediate medical attention to non-threatening conditions unless you are extremely rich. If you are, it really doesn't matter where you live.

There are certain procedures, like elective cosmetic surgery, that won't be easily paid under UHC. Of course, unless your doctor in the US games the system with some phoney medical excuse and referral, that same procedure won't be covered in the USA.

The difference is cost. The key to UHC is that everyone has a decent minimal level of service. UHC is given for free, or for very nominal cost, as a right of living in the country. No one is priced out of coverage.

In a country with a UHC, you can almost always pay out of pocket for enhanced service. Its just that when you get much of it for free, you like to complain about the things you can't get quickly for free.

In the USA, one in five residents have NO health coverage. And since many children are covered by special programs, in many places one in four adults lack coverage. We shortchange so many on the lower end, yet end up subsidizing what care they can get, often in the most expensive ways.

In the USA, even the cheapest bare-bones coverage costs more than the comprehensive coverage in virtually every UHC country.

Don't get me wrong, if you can afford good coverage in the USA, you can get excellent service and excellent care.

I am enrolled in an excellent group plan. But coverage isn't cheap. In company-paid costs, plus my monthly premiums, my co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses, my policy runs ~ $12,000 per year for one person (~ $20,000 for two, about $24,000 for a family of three). I pick up about half that cost. I get to see some great doctors, but unless something is a major emergency, I have to wait 6 to 10 weeks for an appointment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyosukee:
So, Canada, how about that?

---

What are you referring to?

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

__________________
/Thunder in the wind/No rain/Peace mourns its passing/

Whatshisname is sorta like not conservative at all, which is what all them teabaggers want. Seems to me that some will go and vote elsewhere, since Whiatshisnamecare is just as bad as Obamacare if you're Conservative. Not sure where they'll place their vote though, maybe Paul?

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
I think Romney was a poor chose for a candidate, but they had really no choice otherwise. Gingrich is a nutbag, although he seems to be more in line with what they wanna do. The rest, well... yeah, the rest. Santorum is a horrible person.

---

It's never a good thing when you have to deliberate at a "well he's the lesser of three evils" level.

I mean, Cain stole his economy strategy right from Domino's Pizza with his 999 thing. Bachmann is somehow worse than Sarah Palin. Santorum just alienates large groups of people whenever he speaks. There have to be normal people who are also Republicans somewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
I feel like there's gotta be a GOOD republican candidate out there somewhere. It baffles me how they can't seem to find anybody they can use. I guess that's just my opinion of the candidates they did have, but holy crap they say some of the stupidest things, and have some of the most horrible viewpoints.

I mean, Cain stole his economy strategy right from Domino's Pizza with his 999 thing. Bachmann is somehow worse than Sarah Palin. Santorum just alienates large groups of people whenever he speaks. There have to be normal people who are also Republicans somewhere.

@Kyosukee, not sure why I might take offense to what ya posted, but I appreciate the concern!

---

"Moderate" is a dirty word for the GOP these days. You actually have to profess to being crazily to the right or you are drummed out of the party.

Big money GOP'ers laugh and say it isn't really so, that the eccentrics are the right-wing fringe, and will try to claim that their are equivalent numbers of left-wing fringers. But that isn't the way I see it.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passes dozens of anti-abortion bills, but can't tackle a real jobs bill, can't resolve the Postal Service issues (wanting to crush the Postal Service because of its union, but not being able to because it will crush rural Red states), can't even help Red state farmers and ranchers through one of the worst droughts in recent history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
Am I wrong to think that Romney is actually a moderate then? He seems it to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
Am I wrong to think that Romney is actually a moderate then? He seems it to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
So who's gonna win according to MOTL? Obama or whatshisname?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
Am I wrong to think that Romney is actually a moderate then? He seems it to me.

---

Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry

quote:

---

Originally posted by speechjew:
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry

All led in the Republican polls at one point. Until Romney wrapped up the nomination, he wasn't the favorite. If I'm Obama, I want to run against Romney. He's the closest thing to Obama in terms of track record.

---

Cain was an imbecile.
Gingrich at least has experience, but he also spent a lot of the '90s wasting resources trying to impeach Clinton instead of doing anything productive.
Santorum longs for something worse than the 19th century where all non-procreative sex is forbidden (in those days only women would be disgraced by having premarital sex), no sex education, women have no rights and gays are free game for murderers. Undoubtedly, if I paid attention to his insane religous ravings, he would probably want to do other things like forbidding all stem cell research and whatever.
Rick Perry looked like Bush III.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oneofchaos:
I honestly feel this is a repeat of 2004, where the guy in office isn't doing a great job but the other party can't find a ringer to throw against him.

---

Obama is one man and he can't override congress/senate, which is ossified against him due to nothing more than party bickering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Obama is one man and he can't override congress/senate, which is ossified against him due to nothing more than party bickering.

The US system where you have to win three elections to be able to actually push your policies through is stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Obama is one man and he can't override congress/senate, which is ossified against him due to nothing more than party bickering.

The US system where you have to win three elections to be able to actually push your policies through is stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
What are you talking about? He had a super majority his first two years and he was able to do whatever he wanted. His actions during that time are a big part of why our economy is where it is today.

---

which is not so bad considering the larger part of Europe at this point. Bush destroyed your economy and now Obama has got to make repairs without money facing (although not the beginning) a majority of Rep's.

In all honesty, and not wanting to kick anyone in the teeth, as a European, I can't fathom why anyone would vote for a Republican. Ever. It comes across to me that the Rep's just want to keep things as they are, or even worse, go back to how things were, and the Demo's just want to improve stuff. Of course, each side has pro's and con's.

In my lifetime I've seen a few presidents, from Reagan till now, and although I think they all did fairly well (except Bush jr, the fact that he got re-elected is a bigger mystery to me than the Big Bang. Kerry wasn't the man, but Bush DEFINATELY wasn't the man), but somehow it's always the Republicans who seem to start wars and push military budgets.