In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade
I know, sanity looks boring when you've had the crazies running things for so long. Whatever our faults, though, we manage to actually win wars when we run them and we haven't lost a major US city to standing water. Unlike your buddies, whose only real talent seems to be marital infidelity in all it's forms.Fallakin Kuvari wrote: Why don't you inform us how Progressivism is working out for the country?
You mean like Social Security? Of course, the alternative is senior citizens dying in the streets for lack of money to care for themselves. I guess that's perfectly rational, right? Not sociopathic at all.Because government entitlements is sanity...
Gee, that guy wasn't stark raving mad... I bet he wasn't admired by the progressives of the early 1900s at all.We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... three generations of imbeciles are enough.
No, there are two reasons for it. One is efficiency and one is equal treatment of all citizens of the Union.Embar Angylwrath wrote:That's what you get when you growe government.
Implied in Partha's statements is the HE knows whats best for all Americans.. HIS vision is the right visions... that if it wasn't done HIS way America would fall apart.
Social services should be a state issue. But we've gone over that ground before. Liberals think a strong Federal government should be there to do everything and protect everyone because Americans are either too stupid or too lazy to do it for themselves.
Partha, isn't it amusing when wingnuts look at basic economic theory and the consensus view of historians and economists and disregard it, but consider one flawed study by two economists and a book by a partisan to be indisputable fact.Fallakin wrote:All FDR did was prolong the depression. Theres a reason its only called the "Great" depression in the United States.
Compared to private insurance, Medicare is incredibly more efficient. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. So too are the systems I mentioned above - none of them are spending 25-30% on overhead for a private company. And government does not particularly have to worry about paying its' executives millions of dollars a year and compensation packages with stock options.Embar Angylwrath wrote:And when Partha maintains government is efficient.. you know he's stark raving loonie>
If the doctors get paid and its the full amount, but that never happens.Partha wrote:
Compared to private insurance, Medicare is incredibly more efficient. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Just what are you basing the efficiency statement on Partha?Partha wrote:Compared to private insurance, Medicare is incredibly more efficient. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. So too are the systems I mentioned above - none of them are spending 25-30% on overhead for a private company. And government does not particularly have to worry about paying its' executives millions of dollars a year and compensation packages with stock options.Embar Angylwrath wrote:And when Partha maintains government is efficient.. you know he's stark raving loonie>
Of course, in your ideal world, private companies are 100% efficient and always deliver the required services, right? And you call ME loony.
Why you cannot compare Medicare with private insurance
First, private insurance plans must pay government taxes and assessments up to 5% of premiums. These add to the "overhead" costs. Medicare is exempt from these costs.
Second, in determining the overhead costs for Medicare, the government excludes the cost of its own employees who enroll recipients, perform outreach and education, handle customer service, and do auditing and other functions. Private plans include these in overhead.
Third, insurance companies have to collect premiums. The IRS does that for Medicare.
Fourth, private companies do underwriting; their premiums have to cover their costs. Medicare deficits have to be covered by taxpayers.
Fifth, the cost of servicing the public debt is not included in Medicare costs—and Part B is 75% subsidized by general revenues, not beneficiary premiums. If a private insurance company borrows money, the interest paid goes to its overhead.
Would you like to link your evidence? I'll link mine:Embar Angylwrath wrote:Just what are you basing the efficiency statement on Partha?Partha wrote:Compared to private insurance, Medicare is incredibly more efficient. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. So too are the systems I mentioned above - none of them are spending 25-30% on overhead for a private company. And government does not particularly have to worry about paying its' executives millions of dollars a year and compensation packages with stock options.Embar Angylwrath wrote:And when Partha maintains government is efficient.. you know he's stark raving loonie>
Of course, in your ideal world, private companies are 100% efficient and always deliver the required services, right? And you call ME loony.
Why you cannot compare Medicare with private insurance
First, private insurance plans must pay government taxes and assessments up to 5% of premiums. These add to the "overhead" costs. Medicare is exempt from these costs.
Second, in determining the overhead costs for Medicare, the government excludes the cost of its own employees who enroll recipients, perform outreach and education, handle customer service, and do auditing and other functions. Private plans include these in overhead.
Third, insurance companies have to collect premiums. The IRS does that for Medicare.
Fourth, private companies do underwriting; their premiums have to cover their costs. Medicare deficits have to be covered by taxpayers.
Fifth, the cost of servicing the public debt is not included in Medicare costs—and Part B is 75% subsidized by general revenues, not beneficiary premiums. If a private insurance company borrows money, the interest paid goes to its overhead.
That's what I mean by efficiency - more dollars are spent towards care than towards non-care items. Which is why Fallakin's dribblings about underfunding mean nothing in the context of the argument. Sure, Medicare isn't funded as well as it should be. However, it makes those dollars stretch better than a private company that has to worry about making a profit.Perhaps the most obvious advantage of public insurance is that it is inexpensive to administer. The public Medicare plan’s administrative overhead costs (in the range of 3 percent) are well below the overhead costs of large companies that are self-insured (5 to 10 percent of premiums), companies in the small group market (25 to 27 percent of premiums), and individual insurance (40 percent of premiums).15
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.16 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.)17
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.18