By The Public Record The Public Record Mar 9th, 2010
These people truly want Medicare to cover their medical expenses? For all? A program, funded by government, that doesn’t actually cover the entire costs of medical treatment (including prescriptions, specialists etc.)?
Not to mention that a 81% tax increase would apply? That would also include Socialist Security?
It’s also interesting to hear “labor unions” being included in enforcing (promoting) single payer healthcare for the general public when their actions are anything but progressive for employees everywhere as evidenced over at the National Right to Work Foundation.
No, they want a program funded by the people, for the people.
Not a program funded by the people, for private insurers.
Well, I understand that position but to demand such a service via government intrusion into the market process only stifles that progress where the private insurance agencies are already hindered in their ability to provide cheaper insurance cost to their customers because of the regulations imposed upon them by government intervention.
The private insurers are only reacting to the programs installed by the government which do not promote profits, I’d agree that this is what the American public does not want, private insurers receiving the profits of high demand insurance, yet we they allowed to compete across state lines then for consumers this would greatly reduce the level of stifled competition in America.
And since most of these private clinics don’t even accept Medicare or Medicaid what is the motive for their denial of those government run plans (which is what the questions should be)? It’s because, as seen before, the reimbursements for those accepting government run health insurance are not paid back 100% for those costs. Doctors know this and have relayed that message to those using Medicare and/or Medicaid.
The problem is within the restrictions already placed upon the industry itself and not the private insurers.
Why are we talking about the inability for insurance costs to decrease when they recorded $2.4 billion in profits last quarter?
Profits don’t measure the exact ramifications of private insurers in dealing solely with the public.
Simply because they recorded record profits doesn’t imply they took from the general public and redisdributed to themselves without concern for their patients. I’d gather to add that perhaps their services became more competitive in certain states as opposed to that of the government run insurers. Is it wrong to profit from the physically ill if their motives for better health are directed at gaining physical fitness through monetary exchanges involving another party?
I’m sure, if not positive, that there is more to that scenario than what is being given. What of those private practices that improved their services and gained larger patient income? Was their a concerted effort to include those physicians that benefitted from higher customer traffic through innovative procedures (i.e. lower costs=higher demand)?
I’m sure insurance companies would benefit from an increased demand for a particular service if it were given at a lower cost which would eventually lead to the higher demand for said service.
All in all it is the variables left out of that “$2.4 billion in profits” that display the actual truth behind the misleading quotes.
Mail (will not be published) (required)