Shrill liberal rhetoric on Health Care from

[fisher]

Yeah. I have to remind myself it is a business. That is the troubling part for me. I do not like the thought of government intruding in private business but feel this issue is a little more dynamic then just those people who have chose to be without insurance.

Why do you feel health care will be better with the Government out of it? It has not proven to be the case so far. We do not have the best system in the world as many like to proclaim.

Here is the answer--

Actually, if you read the last WHO health report, the US is number ONE in responsiveness and spending per capita in the world (references are on another thread). What drags our overall number down is the fact that the government pays a much smaller portion of the cost than many other countries (we are ranked 55 in this arena). So, we are number one in the area that counts (quality of and access to care) but not so high in who the WHO folks want to see paying for the care.

For example, I believe Columbia was ranked well ahead of us in overall ranking. They were number one in "financial fairness" and about number 85 in responsiveness. Would you rather get your free but crappy healthcare in Colombia or the highest quality healthcare for a fee in the US?

 

[fisher]

Would you cite your source for 30% being raked in by insurance companies please?

Even if accurate, how would the Federal government be able to provide the same service for less money? Federal employees, on average, make over twice what private sector employees make. Federal Pay Continues Rapid Ascent | Cato @ Liberty

I am all for reform. Smart reform. I am adamantly opposed to the single payer system for our country.

Minnie, I explained on the other thread. The post by this user was totally bogus.

 

[Winnie]

Congressman Weiner - NY's 9th district:

Anthony Weiner - New York's 9th District

I think the key here is a single payer option, not a single payer system.

One of the biggest issues is those not covered by any plan, not private sector v. govt. At least those who are employed have good options. There are many who don't have any health care at all, and our country needs to figure out a way to provide it. Otherwise, the uninsured wait until they are very ill to go to an emergency room when early and preventative care would have been much less costly to the system.

It may not be a constitutional right, but it is the right thing to do.

Thanks for posting your source - an opinion piece written for Huffington Post. Rep. Weiner doesn't cite any sources either. He states "profits and overhead" in the 30%.

Last years profit margins for insurance companies were 3.4% according to Morningstar. I found that the other day in this article: Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains - Rick Newman (usnews.com).

Rep. Weiner also states in this opinion piece:

We've been reluctant to tackle the real inefficiency in the current system, namely, the very presence of the private insurance companies.

There is no doubt that he is supportive of a single-payer system, not option.

I think health care reform can address the problem of those currently uninsured without undermining the private insurance industry. I don't see any problem that can't be solved with regulation instead of government takeover.