Senate panel rejects gov't-run insurance option

[donesprague]

Supporters of a new role for government repeatedly accused private insurers of placing profits (so they can stay in business) over coverage (without payment so they are forced out of business), and said they would try for a federal (socialized health care) option again when the full Senate votes.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., issued a recent appeal for funds for his re-election bid, saying, "Delaying reform to protect insurance companies' profits is completely unacceptable to Nevadans, the American people and me."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Insurance company revenue is necessary for the continued existence of the insurance companies. So the senator is saying he doesn’t want the company to stay in business.



We have heard about the jail time for non-members. Will the illegals who do now and will in the future get free coverage also face jail time for failure to join? I doubt that the government will lock up 10 or 20 or 30 million illegals who don’t join. The government could hide behind the 5th amendment. The illegals can’t be required to join because they would have to incriminate them self when they join.


Talk about joining.

How would it be if there was a private club for some people to get all sorts of stuff? Like Grocery store clubs where members only enter? Like social clubs that have events and dining for members only. Some of those clubs could also provide health clinics for members only. The members and the clubs could have contracts that specify that all club members will pay equally for the services they receive. The contract could specify that only club members who pay their dues receive services. No dues payment, no club membership, no service. I would join an insurance club that has a affiliate club membership in hospital clubs. That way, I would be an affiliate member of the hospital clubs because of my insurance company club affiliation membership in hospital and doctor office clubs.

With this process, there would be public hospitals that give away services as well as charge for service; and, there would be club hospitals and club doctor offices that only charge and don’t give away any services. OK, we know that the public, non-club medical services providers would go out of business real soon. However; the club medical facilities would have lower cost and lower fees for the paying members because all members would pay instead of some getting stuff for free.

This is a fair and open equal access process that accounts for every person in the country. We already have clubs that have dining and groceries. They compete with other grocery stores and restaurants. So it only seems logical that medical clubs are a realistic option. There is one big difference between grocery stores and restaurants vs medical facilities. There isn’t any law that requires those food providers to give food to a hungry person. After all, a person could avoid a trip to the hospital if they just had some free food.


WOW, a major way to cut health care cost. Give free food to people so they stay healthy. Do we need a law to force all food delivers sources to give free food when anybody says they are hungry? Do we need socialists politicians to complain about the restaurants and grocery stores making money so they can stay in business over hungry people who will get sick and need medical care if they don’t get free food? Also, drug stores could give free stuff to people so the people don’t need to go to the hospital to get medicine.

[dashvinny]

i hope this is good news.

[ddye]

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars on research to figure out which people are prone to getting sick. Then they refuse to cover those people.

Yeah, that's the kind of health care a prosperous, modern country should have...

Doug

[chip]

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars on research to figure out which people are prone to getting sick. Then they refuse to cover those people.



Source?

[ddye]

Source?
You are actually claiming that insurance companies don't base their acceptance of policies (or at the very least what they CHARGE for those policies) on statistical research? I know asking for a source is a good thing, but come on.

You might not like the way I worded it, but are you really denying it?

Doug

[donesprague]

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars on research to figure out which people are prone to getting sick. Then they refuse to cover those people.

Yeah, that's the kind of health care a prosperous, modern country should have...

Doug

Do you work for free? Do you give away your work effort or do you expect to get paid?

When people work to make things, it is only fair that they get paid.

There is nothing fair about taking from a worker then giving to other people. It doesn't matter if it is health care now or food later, then housing, then cars, then ownership of other people farms or business.

[chip]

You are actually claiming that insurance companies don't base their acceptance of policies (or at the very least what they CHARGE for those policies) on statistical research? I know asking for a source is a good thing, but come on.

You might not like the way I worded it, but are you really denying it?

Doug

I have no doubt some get denied insurance but the way you are wording it is quite ridiculous.

They arent out there spending millions looking for ways to deny coverage. They make money by accepting clients. And people with certain risk factors SHOULD pay more.


But no worries Doug, if the idiots in DC get their way you will get to pay the same premium as the heroin addict down the street.

[opsyscw]

You are actually claiming that insurance companies don't base their acceptance of policies (or at the very least what they CHARGE for those policies) on statistical research? I know asking for a source is a good thing, but come on.

You might not like the way I worded it, but are you really denying it?

DougWithout a source, your statement is no more creditable than your second accusation to the poster.

You cancelled yourself out on this one.

[AvgGuyIA]

You are actually claiming that insurance companies don't base their acceptance of policies (or at the very least what they CHARGE for those policies) on statistical research? I know asking for a source is a good thing, but come on.

You might not like the way I worded it, but are you really denying it?

Doug

Agent: Sir, do you smoke?

Enrollee: Yes...2 packs a day for 60 years.

Agent: I'm afraid we can't insure you.

You think that is unreasonable?

[donesprague]

You are actually claiming that insurance companies don't base their acceptance of policies (or at the very least what they CHARGE for those policies) on statistical research? I know asking for a source is a good thing, but come on.

You might not like the way I worded it, but are you really denying it?

Doug

Companies do spend money finding ways to make money. Some insurance companies will insure a dancer's legs. People can purchase insurance for their teeth when their smile is used in advertisements. The research allows the business to indetify a risk reward ratio so they can have a proper price for the product. Without a proper price, the company will fail. Too high and the customers go to another provider. Too low and the company doesn't get enough to cover expense. Research of cost and value and charge structure is a valid business activity. We have the best health care in the world because people work and make improvements. They expect to get paid for their work. Without pay, there is no work. No work equals no product. No product equals no health care.

[donesprague]

Agent: Sir, do you smoke?

Enrollee: Yes...2 packs a day for 60 years.

Agent: I'm afraid we can't insure you.

You think that is unreasonable?

Or, there will be an extra charge to cover the risk associated with your life choices.

[ddye]

Agent: Sir, do you smoke?

Enrollee: Yes...2 packs a day for 60 years.

Agent: I'm afraid we can't insure you.

You think that is unreasonable?
I'm not sure that the health of American citizens should necessarily be for profit. Maybe we should care more about ensuring that the citizens are healthy rather than caring that somebody's making money from it.

Doug

[kat]

It ain't over yet:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/28/health.care/index.html?eref=rss_politics
Senate Democrats plan to force vote on public option


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two members of the Senate Finance Committee plan to put their Democratic colleagues on the spot on Tuesday by offering amendments on whether to give uninsured Americans the opportunity to join a government insurance program.

While health care reform legislation in the House and an alternate plan in the Senate have included a so-called "public option," the Finance Committee's version, which Republicans haven't rejected completely, has not included a government-sponsored provision.


Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Chuck Schumer of New York planned to offer the amendments last week before the action was delayed.

[donesprague]

I'm not sure that the health of American citizens should necessarily be for profit. Maybe we should care more about ensuring that the citizens are healthy rather than caring that somebody's making money from it.

Doug

You still haven't responded to the big questions.

Do you work for free?

Do you give away your work effort or do you expect to get paid?

Do you think it is fair for people to get paid for their work?


What comes after refusing to pay health care workers for their work to give free health care?

Does free food and housing and cars and ownership of other people farms or business come next?

If you believe in charity, that is good so give. I give and that is the way it should be. It isn't the function of governments to force some to give their work without pay so some don't have to give to charity to sooth their bleeding heart.

[ddye]

You still haven't responded to the big questions.

Do you work for free?

Do you give away your work effort or do you expect to get paid?

Do you think it is fair for people to get paid for their work?
Sure, insurance company employees should be paid for their "work". At least as long as they have jobs.

What comes after refusing to pay health care workers for their work to give free health care?

Does free food and housing and cars and ownership of other people farms or business come next?
Poor people and illegals get "free" health care RIGHT NOW. It's working people who get screwed, and those who pay premiums. Let's say your wife was denied coverage for beast cancer because of the "preexisting condition" of acne as a teenager. Would you be still be complaining about insurance executives not being paid?

And I'll bet the ******* who came up with that dodge to save the insurance company from paying for that poor woman's breast cancer got a ****ing RAISE.

If you believe in charity, that is good so give. I give and that is the way it should be. It isn't the function of governments to force some to give their work without pay so some don't have to give to charity to sooth their bleeding heart.
Hey, maybe conservatives will get power back and we can dream of that great Golden Age of Dickens, where nobody got anything for "free", poor people starved in the street, rich people stepped over the bodies, and "charity" consisted of nourishing gruel. Good times.

Doug

[chip]

I'm not sure that the health of American citizens should necessarily be for profit. Maybe we should care more about ensuring that the citizens are healthy rather than caring that somebody's making money from it.

Doug


Well over 50% of all healthcare spending is from the govt. Of the balance of those insured elsewhere 46% are insured by non-profit companies.

Maybe the govt could start paying for services medicare/medicaid recipients receive instead of screwing the rest of us.

Wonder why politicians wont start with that?

[Bertha]

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars on research to figure out which people are prone to getting sick. Then they refuse to cover those people.

Yeah, that's the kind of health care a prosperous, modern country should have...

Doug

And those same insurance companies spent just shy of a million keeping my twin children alive in the neonatal intensive care unit for just shy of 8 weeks.

And, the care my children received was excellent health care for what a prosperous, modern country should have...

[ddye]

And those same insurance companies spent just shy of a million keeping my twin children alive in the neonatal intensive care unit for just shy of 8 weeks.

And, the care my children received was excellent health care for what a prosperous, modern country should have...
Maybe soon everyone will be as lucky as you.

Doug

[chip]

Let's say your wife was denied coverage for beast cancer because of the "preexisting condition" of acne as a teenager.

:rolleyes:

Didnt you hear?

Obama was lying about that little anecdote. Its a myth.

[ddye]

Well over 50% of all healthcare spending is from the govt. Of the balance of those insured elsewhere 46% are insured by non-profit companies.

Maybe the govt could start paying for services medicare/medicaid recipients receive instead of screwing the rest of us.

Wonder why politicians wont start with that?
Because politicians are often whores, just like CEOs are often thieves?

Doug

[Bertha]

Maybe soon everyone will be as lucky as you.

Doug

I paid my own premium, thank you very much....and had acne as a kid too.

[chip]

Because politicians are often whores, just like CEOs are often thieves?

Doug

I can choose my insurance company. Ill lose my choice with the govt plan.

[ddye]

:rolleyes:

Didnt you hear?

Obama was lying about that little anecdote. Its a myth.
read the WHOLE STORY:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/acne_horror_story_not_true_0899ReIlADQCWX2YtEDIjK/1

The insurance company cancelled her policy for several reasons, one of which was understating her weight by FIVE POUNDS. They relented after she threatened bad publicity for the insurance company. Insurance companies are often utter scum.

There are opinions on both sides about the acne (I was wrong it was "adult" acne). Here's a link:

http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207000035/fulltext

Doug

[CountryGirl]

read the WHOLE STORY:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/acne_horror_story_not_true_0899ReIlADQCWX2YtEDIjK/1

The insurance company cancelled her policy for several reasons, one of which was understating her weight by FIVE POUNDS. They relented after she threatened bad publicity for the insurance company. Insurance companies are often utter scum.

There are opinions on both sides about the acne (I was wrong it was "adult" acne). Here's a link:

http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207000035/fulltext

Doug

The five pounds wouldn't have mattered had it not been for this omission, taken from your link:

She says she thought nothing of a fast-heartbeat episode that had prompted an earlier doctor’s visit, and the resulting heart medication she stopped taking two years ago, and did not report that on the enrollment form.
The form asks applicants to list heart conditions and a wide variety of other conditions experienced in the past 10 years, any physician consultations in the last five years, any medication taken in the last year, and more.
You don't have to be a physician or an insurance underwriter to understand the consequences of omitting a heart episode. The weight - if it was only 5 pounds, which was her number and not the companies - would not have mattered one bit had it not been for the heart condition and medication that was not disclosed on the application.

[chip]

read the WHOLE STORY:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/acne_horror_story_not_true_0899ReIlADQCWX2YtEDIjK/1

The insurance company cancelled her policy for several reasons, one of which was understating her weight by FIVE POUNDS. They relented after she threatened bad publicity for the insurance company. Insurance companies are often utter scum.



Um the WHOLE story is she also had not reported a previous heart issue. Wonder why you left that out?

The REST of the story is "Rep. Joe Barton, Beaton Republican congressman in Texas, fought the insurer until it restored her coverage, enabling her to get the surgery 10 weeks after it was postponed. She told The Associated Press she owes Barton and his aides her life.


But :liar:bama chose to lie and fear monger.

Pretty telling.

[kaydahl]

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars on research to figure out which people are prone to getting sick. Then they refuse to cover those people.

Yeah, that's the kind of health care a prosperous, modern country should have...

Doug

And pharmaceutical companies have profit margins around 8x higher than private health insurance companies, but since they cut a deal with the White House to support Obamacare, their profits are of no concern.

Yeah, that's the kind of politics a prosperous, modern country should have....

[Celtic Pax]

I'm not sure that the health of American citizens should necessarily be for profit. Maybe we should care more about ensuring that the citizens are healthy rather than caring that somebody's making money from it.

DougThe only thing your idea of a healthcare system that would do nothing but lower healthcare for everyone and lower care availability for the very young and the old. Hardly a healthcare system I would choose to live under. My twins were in neonatal for 2 weeks and the private health insurance I had paid for their treatment very well. If I had to deal with the government, I doubt I would be able to say the same. You can keep your idea of universal healthcare, I choose to deal with the agitations and great health care I presently have.

[dad49er]

With the public option apparently gone (for now).
The only viable option for controlling costs, and real reform is heavier regulation upon the health insurance industry.
The insurance companies may well rue the day the public option was eliminated.

[donesprague]

Sure, insurance company employees should be paid for their "work". At least as long as they have jobs.


Poor people and illegals get "free" health care RIGHT NOW. It's working people who get screwed, and those who pay premiums. Let's say your wife was denied coverage for beast cancer because of the "preexisting condition" of acne as a teenager. Would you be still be complaining about insurance executives not being paid?

And I'll bet the ******* who came up with that dodge to save the insurance company from paying for that poor woman's breast cancer got a ****ing RAISE.


Hey, maybe conservatives will get power back and we can dream of that great Golden Age of Dickens, where nobody got anything for "free", poor people starved in the street, rich people stepped over the bodies, and "charity" consisted of nourishing gruel. Good times.

Doug

Correct. uninsured and illegals get "free" health care so working people who get screwed. Why make it worse as?

Why should those who pay premiums get less service or a higher cost to cover the illegals or uninsured. Making absurd what ifs to justify socialized health care doesn't work. A business can't give away services and stay in business.

Three things needed to be done to reduce the cost to the paying customers

- no free stuff. Somebody pays or no service. A charity pay or even the provider can volunteer to give away their food or any other product.

- Tort reform.

- Throttle excess greed. Note; some greed is not the problem, It is excess greed that is the problem.


One thing that can’t help is charging more to payers so some can get it free or for less.


You answered part of the question but that seems to be enough to extrapolate more answers. You don't work for free. You think insurance company employees should be paid. It is logical to consider that you think health care employees should get paid. So why do you think some of the customers of health care workers should get free stuff?

You say insurance company employees should get paid as long as they have jobs. That sounds like you know the insurance companies will go out of business with socialized health care. That will also cause the destruction of the entire health care industry.

You didn't address what come after free health care?

Does free food and housing and cars and ownership of other people farms or business come next?

[chip]

The only viable option for controlling costs, and real reform is heavier regulation upon the health insurance industry.


Thats ridiculous. If you want costs to come down simply mandate the govt pay full price for treatment medicare/medicaid patients receive and stop shifting it to those of us not on medicare/medicaid.

[donesprague]

Maybe soon everyone will be as lucky as you.

Doug

Bertha wasn't lucky. She paid for coverage and got it. With the socialized haalth care plan, she would have been unlucky because she would have still been paying but would have received less service because others would be getting free stuff.

[donesprague]

read the WHOLE STORY:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/acne_horror_story_not_true_0899ReIlADQCWX2YtEDIjK/1

The insurance company cancelled her policy for several reasons, one of which was understating her weight by FIVE POUNDS. They relented after she threatened bad publicity for the insurance company. Insurance companies are often utter scum.

There are opinions on both sides about the acne (I was wrong it was "adult" acne). Here's a link:

http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207000035/fulltext

Doug


So we can find some example in the news about problems.

Talk to the millions of people who come here to get coverage because they can't get service from their socialized health service. Each one of them can tell of hundreds of bigger problems they and their family members had from their socialized providers. They don't have to search for examples in the news. They lived through worse problems and some of their family died because of what you seem to want.

[donesprague]

With the public option apparently gone (for now).
The only viable option for controlling costs, and real reform is heavier regulation upon the health insurance industry.
The insurance companies may well rue the day the public option was eliminated.

How about no free stuff


Tort reform



Throttle excess greed

[dad49er]

Thats ridiculous. If you want costs to come down simply mandate the govt pay full price for treatment medicare/medicaid patients receive and stop shifting it to those of us not on medicare/medicaid.

That would be valid except private insurance companies do the same.
Blue Shield paid my $480,000 bill at the hospital for $180,000 and the hospital accepted as payment in full. I don't know where the hospital made up the difference unless the bill was bogus in the first place.

[dad49er]

How about no free stuff


Tort reform



Throttle excess greed

I could go along with "no free stuff" but I wouldn't want to see co-pays or deductibles go up too high either.
Tort reform handled as a separate issue, without a cap, is fine with me.

[chip]

That would be valid except private insurance companies do the same.
Blue Shield paid my $480,000 bill at the hospital for $180,000 and the hospital accepted as payment in full. I don't know where the hospital made up the difference unless the bill was bogus in the first place.

Unfortunately facts differ from your opinions.

[dad49er]

Unfortunately facts differ from your opinions.

Opinion?
I could send you the bill, and statement from the insurer.

[wayoverthehill]

:rolleyes:

Didnt you hear?

Obama was lying about that little anecdote. Its a myth.Dougie is a bit behind the times. That story was debunked again today.

But when you are a bleeding heart lib, I guess your heart bleeds for any old thing, true or not.

[wayoverthehill]

Um the WHOLE story is she also had not reported a previous heart issue. Wonder why you left that out?

The REST of the story is "Rep. Joe Barton, Beaton Republican congressman in Texas, fought the insurer until it restored her coverage, enabling her to get the surgery 10 weeks after it was postponed. She told The Associated Press she owes Barton and his aides her life.


But :liar:bama chose to lie and fear monger.

Pretty telling.Well, jeez, Chip, you can hardly expect Obambi to give any credit to a REPUBLICAN, now can you?

Especially Joe Barton, who is pretty good people.

[FOX Watcher]

What I find going on in this thread is a complete joke and nothing but partisan politics being played. I find it hysterical to see people defending the Insurance Industry just because that is what their minds are programmed to do to defend their Football team (Republican Party Platform).

It's okay for the Insurance Companies to take advantage of people and rape consumers, try to deny them coverage based on pre-existing conditions ... UNTIL the people posting this nonsense are actually negatively affected by an Insurance Company. Then, the story changes.

Alright, Time Out is over. Let the football game resume.

[kaydahl]

I could go along with "no free stuff" but I wouldn't want to see co-pays or deductibles go up too high either.
Tort reform handled as a separate issue, without a cap, is fine with me.

I have a high deductible plan with very low premiums, and a steadily expanding HSA because I choose to pay for most routine care out of pocket. And I want to keep it that way.

[donesprague]

What I find going on in this thread is a complete joke and nothing but partisan politics being played. I find it hysterical to see people defending the Insurance Industry just because that is what their minds are programmed to do to defend their Football team (Republican Party Platform).

It's okay for the Insurance Companies to take advantage of people and rape consumers, try to deny them coverage based on pre-existing conditions ... UNTIL the people posting this nonsense are actually negatively affected by an Insurance Company. Then, the story changes.

Alright, Time Out is over. Let the football game resume.

What I see in this post is a complete joke and nothing but partisan politics spin being played.

I find it typical to see the post attack the Insurance Industry just because the goal of the socialists is to destroy the insurance industry

It's well known that all socialized health care countries don't take care of people as well as the US health care industry. They deny them coverage based on cost reduction goals. When or if the people posting this nonsense are actually negatively affected by socialized health care, they will or might change their tune.

Time out isn't an option, the fight to defend freedom must always continue.

[chip]

Opinion?
I could send you the bill, and statement from the insurer.

Yes your opinion that "private insurance companies do the same"

[ChaosControl]

I have no respect for insurance companies and would not be sad to see them go out of business, however I have even less respect for the government and would be absolutely thrilled if they went out of business.

So no federal option is good. I'd like to see no federal anything.

[dad49er]

Yes your opinion that "private insurance companies do the same"

They do.
It is called "negotiated cost", I have never received a statement where they paid full cost as indicated on the hospital bill.

[dad49er]

Yes your opinion that "private insurance companies do the same"

Here:

Behind the Mystery of Negotiated Rates in Health Care
Most people find it next to impossible to determine the costs of medical treatments before they’re rendered and the bill comes in the mail. As those who do try to find out soon realize, different health insurance carriers or providers often pay different rates for a variety of treatments, procedures, surgeries, hospital care and emergency medical care treatments. The disparity of costs is due to what are known as the health insurance negotiated rate.

Negotiated rates are basically the payment amount that healthcare providers from different California Health Insurance carriers (such as Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, PacifiCare, Aetna, United Health Care) agree to accept for services rendered. Negotiated rates are generally limited to a Preferred Provider Plans (PPOs) network, which are common health insurance plans offered by employers in which individuals agree to limit their visits to doctors or services included in a specific coverage plan. However, these rates may differ depending on demographics such as location and population density.

I have seen statements where private insurance companies pay as little as 1/3 to 1/2 of what the hospitals have billed, and the hospital accepts that as payment in full.
They either make up the difference somewhere else.
Or the bill was highly inflated, or 'bogus' in the first place.

http://www.mattsinsurance4ca.com/Negotiated-rate.html

[dad49er]

I have no respect for insurance companies and would not be sad to see them go out of business, however I have even less respect for the government and would be absolutely thrilled if they went out of business.

So no federal option is good. I'd like to see no federal anything.

Just a bit extreme.
No road ways, or highways.
No national defence.
No rules for currency, or how to conduct commerce.
Utter chaos IMO.

Might be a case of can't live with it, can't live without it.

[johnrocks]

Because politicians are often whores, just like CEOs are often thieves?

Doug

Perhaps then, it's time for both to get out of the business of health insurance.:cool:

[johnrocks]

They do.
It is called "negotiated cost", I have never received a statement where they paid full cost as indicated on the hospital bill.

The one thing that helps contain costs, perhaps actual costs would be better than usual and customary, is that what your proposing?
It is a paradox, on one hand, insurance negotiates rates or pays "usual and customary" in an effort to contain costs but yet third party price lists give incentive for charging up to that price as opposed to competing for the best service at the lowest cost.

Indeed...a paradox.

[jmb6]

I'm not sure that the health of American citizens should necessarily be for profit. Maybe we should care more about ensuring that the citizens are healthy rather than caring that somebody's making money from it.

Doug

OK, then pass a law to make the insurance industries non-profit again.

[jmb6]

Here:

Behind the Mystery of Negotiated Rates in Health Care
Most people find it next to impossible to determine the costs of medical treatments before they’re rendered and the bill comes in the mail. As those who do try to find out soon realize, different health insurance carriers or providers often pay different rates for a variety of treatments, procedures, surgeries, hospital care and emergency medical care treatments. The disparity of costs is due to what are known as the health insurance negotiated rate.

Negotiated rates are basically the payment amount that healthcare providers from different California Health Insurance carriers (such as Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, PacifiCare, Aetna, United Health Care) agree to accept for services rendered. Negotiated rates are generally limited to a Preferred Provider Plans (PPOs) network, which are common health insurance plans offered by employers in which individuals agree to limit their visits to doctors or services included in a specific coverage plan. However, these rates may differ depending on demographics such as location and population density.

I have seen statements where private insurance companies pay as little as 1/3 to 1/2 of what the hospitals have billed, and the hospital accepts that as payment in full.
They either make up the difference somewhere else.
Or the bill was highly inflated, or 'bogus' in the first place.

http://www.mattsinsurance4ca.com/Negotiated-rate.html

So, you dont think that individuals who have a common need should hire an external party to negotiate on their behalf?

Interesting.

[chip]

Here:

Behind the Mystery of Negotiated Rates in Health Care
Most people find it next to impossible to determine the costs of medical treatments before they’re rendered and the bill comes in the mail. As those who do try to find out soon realize, different health insurance carriers or providers often pay different rates for a variety of treatments, procedures, surgeries, hospital care and emergency medical care treatments. The disparity of costs is due to what are known as the health insurance negotiated rate.

Negotiated rates are basically the payment amount that healthcare providers from different California Health Insurance carriers (such as Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, PacifiCare, Aetna, United Health Care) agree to accept for services rendered. Negotiated rates are generally limited to a Preferred Provider Plans (PPOs) network, which are common health insurance plans offered by employers in which individuals agree to limit their visits to doctors or services included in a specific coverage plan. However, these rates may differ depending on demographics such as location and population density.

I have seen statements where private insurance companies pay as little as 1/3 to 1/2 of what the hospitals have billed, and the hospital accepts that as payment in full.
They either make up the difference somewhere else.
Or the bill was highly inflated, or 'bogus' in the first place.

http://www.mattsinsurance4ca.com/Negotiated-rate.html

Again, Facts refute your opinions.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c113/ChipV/0612costshift_chart1.gif



Commercial insurers arent shifting the cost to anyone.

[donesprague]

Again, Facts refute your opinions.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c113/ChipV/0612costshift_chart1.gif



Commercial insurers arent shifting the cost to anyone.

Medical provders aren't shifting cost from commercial payers (insurers) to anyone.

When government pays less, the commercial payers make up the difference.

[chip]

Medical provders aren't shifting cost from commercial payers (insurers) to anyone.

When government pays less, the commercial payers make up the difference.

Obviously.

Well to those who actually understand what cost shifting is.

[dad49er]

The one thing that helps contain costs, perhaps actual costs would be better than usual and customary, is that what your proposing?
It is a paradox, on one hand, insurance negotiates rates or pays "usual and customary" in an effort to contain costs but yet third party price lists give incentive for charging up to that price as opposed to competing for the best service at the lowest cost.

Indeed...a paradox.

Yes it is indeed.

My conversation was about the 'government' and private insurance companies engaging in the same type of behavior as far as what they will pay hospitals, etc. Many want to say "government bad" over behaviors that are no different than those practiced by private insurers.

[dad49er]

OK, then pass a law to make the insurance industries non-profit again.

Again?
When would that have been?

[dad49er]

So, you dont think that individuals who have a common need should hire an external party to negotiate on their behalf?

Interesting.

Not what I'm saying.
I was refuting the notion that private insures do not engage in that practice.
They underpay what the hospital request is (billing).
I presume they shift the cost somewhere else, perhaps to people that do not have insurance.
Or that there bill is highly over inflated, and bogus.

[dad49er]

Again, Facts refute your opinions.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c113/ChipV/0612costshift_chart1.gif



Commercial insurers arent shifting the cost to anyone.

I didn't say one was bigger than the other.
I said private insures engaged in the same practice as government programs did.
They do.
You said they didn't, and accused me of lying (:naughty:).
Looking at your data it would seem the government is better at that game than the private insurers are!
If private insures are not paying the bill in full the cost has to be shifted somewhere. Most likely to the uninsured.
Either that or the hospitals are presenting over inflated bills. Perhaps to write off the differences as loses for tax purposes.

[chip]

I didn't say one was bigger than the other.
I said private insures engaged in the same practice as government programs did.
They do.

No they dont. Commercial insurance companies dont pay less than costs and shift that burden elsewhere.


You said they didn't, and accused me of lying (:naughty:).

I didnt accuse you of lying. Feel free to quote me directly. Im accusing you of not understanding what cost shifting is. And you still dont understand it.


Looking at your data it would seem the government is better at that game than the private insurers are!

Again, the govt is the one shifting costs to commercial insurance. Libs like you whine about the cost of healthcare but dont seem to want to address the biggest cause.

If private insures are not paying the bill in full the cost has to be shifted somewhere. Most likely to the uninsured.

Thats a ridiculous claim you cant back up.

Either that or the hospitals are presenting over inflated bills. Perhaps to write off the differences as loses for tax purposes.

Like I said, you dont understand and your posts continue to show it.

[dad49er]

No they dont. Commercial insurance companies dont pay less than costs and shift that burden elsewhere.




I didnt accuse you of lying. Feel free to quote me directly. Im accusing you of not understanding what cost shifting is. And you still dont understand it.




Again, the govt is the one shifting costs to commercial insurance. Libs like you whine about the cost of healthcare but dont seem to want to address the biggest cause.



Thats a ridiculous claim you cant back up.



Like I said, you dont understand and your posts continue to show it.

I'll post it again:

Behind the Mystery of Negotiated Rates in Health Care
Most people find it next to impossible to determine the costs of medical treatments before they’re rendered and the bill comes in the mail. As those who do try to find out soon realize, different health insurance carriers or providers often pay different rates for a variety of treatments, procedures, surgeries, hospital care and emergency medical care treatments. The disparity of costs is due to what are known as the health insurance negotiated rate.

Negotiated rates are basically the payment amount that healthcare providers from different California Health Insurance carriers (such as Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, PacifiCare, Aetna, United Health Care) agree to accept for services rendered. Negotiated rates are generally limited to a Preferred Provider Plans (PPOs) network, which are common health insurance plans offered by employers in which individuals agree to limit their visits to doctors or services included in a specific coverage plan. However, these rates may differ depending on demographics such as location and population density.

I have seen statements where private insurance companies pay as little as 1/3 to 1/2 of what the hospitals have billed, and the hospital accepts that as payment in full.
They either make up the difference somewhere else.
Or the bill was highly inflated, or 'bogus' in the first place.

http://www.mattsinsurance4ca.com/Negotiated-rate.html

Those are the facts. The hospitals accept less money from the private insurance companies than they originally billed for. Those cost differences are made up somewhere.

During my hospitalization I received original bills from the hospital, and later statements from the insurance company. The hospitals settled for far less than the original bill.

I reread you're post, you didn't accuse me of lying. Just late at night and I took it that way. Please accept my apology.

[chip]

I'll post it again:

Behind the Mystery of Negotiated Rates in Health Care
Most people find it next to impossible to determine the costs of medical treatments before they’re rendered and the bill comes in the mail. As those who do try to find out soon realize, different health insurance carriers or providers often pay different rates for a variety of treatments, procedures, surgeries, hospital care and emergency medical care treatments. The disparity of costs is due to what are known as the health insurance negotiated rate.

Negotiated rates are basically the payment amount that healthcare providers from different California Health Insurance carriers (such as Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser, PacifiCare, Aetna, United Health Care) agree to accept for services rendered. Negotiated rates are generally limited to a Preferred Provider Plans (PPOs) network, which are common health insurance plans offered by employers in which individuals agree to limit their visits to doctors or services included in a specific coverage plan. However, these rates may differ depending on demographics such as location and population density.

I have seen statements where private insurance companies pay as little as 1/3 to 1/2 of what the hospitals have billed, and the hospital accepts that as payment in full.
They either make up the difference somewhere else.
Or the bill was highly inflated, or 'bogus' in the first place.

http://www.mattsinsurance4ca.com/Negotiated-rate.html

Those are the facts. The hospitals accept less money from the private insurance companies than they originally billed for. Those cost differences are made up somewhere.

During my hospitalization I received original bills from the hospital, and later statements from the insurance company. The hospitals settled for far less than the original bill.

Nothing in what you have posted in this thread including what you have reposted shows that commercial insurance shifts cost onto any one else. Paying less than billed isnt paying BELOW THE COST OF SERVICES which is what Medicare/medicaid does. The reason you see higher bills to insurance companies than they pay is because healthcare providers are trying to make up what they are losing to Medicare/Medicaid patients. They lose 15% on average tp medicare/medicaid as I have shown.

Again, your not understanding what cost shifting is.

Some light reading on how our govt is screwing those not on medicare/medicaid

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/bad-government-raises-health-care-costs/

http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com/repairing_the_healthcare_/2006/06/what_is_price_s.html

http://saturdaybriefing.outrigger.com/uncategorized/cost-shifting-distorts-health-care/

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w3.489v1/DC1

I reread you're post, you didn't accuse me of lying. Just late at night and I took it that way. Please accept my apology.

Accepted

[dad49er]

Nothing in what you have posted in this thread including what you have reposted shows that commercial insurance shifts cost onto any one else. Paying less than billed isnt paying BELOW THE COST OF SERVICES which is what Medicare/medicaid does. The reason you see higher bills to insurance companies than they pay is because healthcare providers are trying to make up what they are losing to Medicare/Medicaid patients. They lose 15% on average tp medicare/medicaid as I have shown.

Again, your not understanding what cost shifting is.

Some light reading on how our govt is screwing those not on medicare/medicaid

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/bad-government-raises-health-care-costs/

http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com/repairing_the_healthcare_/2006/06/what_is_price_s.html

http://saturdaybriefing.outrigger.com/uncategorized/cost-shifting-distorts-health-care/

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w3.489v1/DC1



Accepted

I took the time to read your links.
I conclude that the hospitals are shifting costs because of more than one source.
They are shifting costs for government programs, but they are also shifting costs to make up for the lower payments accepted from private insurers.
Thus those costs (some of which I question) still have to be made up somewhere.
Does it really matter which party, government or private insurer is more responsible?

My guess is that the cost is passed on to those with no insurance at all, the ones who can least afford it, and the ones who are the most powerless to fight it.

[WildRose]

Supporters of a new role for government repeatedly accused private insurers of placing profits (so they can stay in business) over coverage (without payment so they are forced out of business), and said they would try for a federal (socialized health care) option again when the full Senate votes.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., issued a recent appeal for funds for his re-election bid, saying, "Delaying reform to protect insurance companies' profits is completely unacceptable to Nevadans, the American people and me."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Insurance company revenue is necessary for the continued existence of the insurance companies. So the senator is saying he doesn’t want the company to stay in business.



We have heard about the jail time for non-members. Will the illegals who do now and will in the future get free coverage also face jail time for failure to join? I doubt that the government will lock up 10 or 20 or 30 million illegals who don’t join. The government could hide behind the 5th amendment. The illegals can’t be required to join because they would have to incriminate them self when they join.


Talk about joining.

How would it be if there was a private club for some people to get all sorts of stuff? Like Grocery store clubs where members only enter? Like social clubs that have events and dining for members only. Some of those clubs could also provide health clinics for members only. The members and the clubs could have contracts that specify that all club members will pay equally for the services they receive. The contract could specify that only club members who pay their dues receive services. No dues payment, no club membership, no service. I would join an insurance club that has a affiliate club membership in hospital clubs. That way, I would be an affiliate member of the hospital clubs because of my insurance company club affiliation membership in hospital and doctor office clubs.

With this process, there would be public hospitals that give away services as well as charge for service; and, there would be club hospitals and club doctor offices that only charge and don’t give away any services. OK, we know that the public, non-club medical services providers would go out of business real soon. However; the club medical facilities would have lower cost and lower fees for the paying members because all members would pay instead of some getting stuff for free.

This is a fair and open equal access process that accounts for every person in the country. We already have clubs that have dining and groceries. They compete with other grocery stores and restaurants. So it only seems logical that medical clubs are a realistic option. There is one big difference between grocery stores and restaurants vs medical facilities. There isn’t any law that requires those food providers to give food to a hungry person. After all, a person could avoid a trip to the hospital if they just had some free food.


WOW, a major way to cut health care cost. Give free food to people so they stay healthy. Do we need a law to force all food delivers sources to give free food when anybody says they are hungry? Do we need socialists politicians to complain about the restaurants and grocery stores making money so they can stay in business over hungry people who will get sick and need medical care if they don’t get free food? Also, drug stores could give free stuff to people so the people don’t need to go to the hospital to get medicine.If the casinos and hotels were not unionized the idio Harry Reid would still be at "home on the range" in the desert.

He, Pelosi, and Obama have done such a bang up job the odds are very good that there won't be enough SEIU muscle to blackmail, manipulate, and steal another election for him.

If he does pull an end run and get the "public option" passed through reconcilliation I strongly suspect he will be finished in DC.

[WildRose]

My guess is that the cost is passed on to those with no insurance at all, the ones who can least afford it, and the ones who are the most powerless to fight it.
And you would be dead wrong. The costs are shifted to those with the ability to pay whether it's through Medicare, or Private insurance, and more and more is shifted to those with private insurance every year because medicare and medicaid reimbursements are pathetic at best, and anymore don't even begin to cover the actual cost of treatment, much less anyh profit.

Every hospital and clinic I have ever been associated with gives a discount to cash customers and all have been willing to work out payment plans for those who fall between the cracks.

[dad49er]

And you would be dead wrong. The costs are shifted to those with the ability to pay whether it's through Medicare, or Private insurance, and more and more is shifted to those with private insurance every year because medicare and medicaid reimbursements are pathetic at best, and anymore don't even begin to cover the actual cost of treatment, much less anyh profit.

Every hospital and clinic I have ever been associated with gives a discount to cash customers and all have been willing to work out payment plans for those who fall between the cracks.

Private insurance companies get their discount too.
In some cases they pay 1/3 to 1/2 and that is accepted as payment in full.

[donesprague]

Yes it is indeed.

My conversation was about the 'government' and private insurance companies engaging in the same type of behavior as far as what they will pay hospitals, etc. Many want to say "government bad" over behaviors that are no different than those practiced by private insurers.

It is true that commercial insurance and government socialized coverage engage in the same type of activities. That hasn't ever been the issue. What matters is the scope.

Sure charges are negotiated by both regardless of the provider or payer. All payers try to get the best price. Government has an advantage that it uses. It is called the force of law. The government uses it’s power to get below cost charges in the health care field. That means the provider must make up the loss from government payments by charging others a higher price.

The same applies to denial of service. Both commercial and socialized payers engage in the same type of practices related to health coverage. Both refuse to cover certain conditions. Both limit coverage in many ways. Again, the government has the force of law to enable it to refuse and restrict coverage in a greater way. The choice is some restriction from commercial pays or more restrictions from socialized pays.

The two factors apply to socialized coverage; paying below cost, and paying for fewer services.

Either one results in inferior health care. Both, together result in inadequate health care for the general population.

All the problems in commercial pays are small compared to the same problems in socialized pays.

[donesprague]

Again, the govt is the one shifting costs to commercial insurance. Libs like you whine about the cost of healthcare but dont seem to want to address the biggest cause.

Basically correct. The government causes the shift. The service provider shifts the loss from government payments to the commercial payers because the provider must cover cost.


If private insures are not paying the bill in full the cost has to be shifted somewhere. Most likely to the uninsured.

Thats a ridiculous claim you cant back up.

Dad is somewhat correct because he has the right idea but the wrong revenue area. When commercial payers pay below the initial bill, the cost aren't shifted. The profit is't realized. As previously shown, the cost for the commercial customer are covered by commercial payers. Some of the cost for government payments are shifted to the commercial payers.



Either that or the hospitals are presenting over inflated bills. Perhaps to write off the differences as loses for tax purposes.

Like I said, you dont understand and your posts continue to show it.

Again, dad has the correct idea but the wrong argument.

There are many reasons a service provider presents an initial bill. Forget the tax argument. In health care, part of the reason might include the government payment laws. If the goverment, by law, establishes it's payment for services based on charges, the provider should logically inflate the initial bill to cause the government payment schedule to move up to be closer to covering the cost.

In any case. Dad needs to understand the difference between cost and charges and profit.

Cost must be covered

Charges are the way cost are covered.

Charges are part of the revenue building process. Without revenue to cover all cost, the provider fails. Without revenue above cost, the provider can't do research to improve products.

[chip]

I took the time to read your links.
I conclude that the hospitals are shifting costs because of more than one source.
They are shifting costs for government programs, but they are also shifting costs to make up for the lower payments accepted from private insurers.
Thus those costs (some of which I question) still have to be made up somewhere.
Does it really matter which party, government or private insurer is more responsible?

My guess is that the cost is passed on to those with no insurance at all, the ones who can least afford it, and the ones who are the most powerless to fight it.

:wall:

Commercial insurers cant cause cost shifting. They arent losing money on commercial insurers.


You seem to be the only person on the planet who doesnt understand this.

[donesprague]

Thus those costs (some of which I question) still have to be made up somewhere.
Does it really matter which party, government or private insurer is more responsible?



Cost vs charges.

You question charges. We don't know the cost that are covered by the charges.

It does matter that the government doesn't cover cost when they pay bills that are below both charges and cost. Not paying the full charge doesn't mean the cost aren't covered. When a commercial payer pays below charges, they are paying way above cost of the actual service because they must make up the below charge and below cost payment from the government for another persons service cost.

[dad49er]

:wall:

Commercial insurers cant cause cost shifting. They arent losing money on commercial insurers.


You seem to be the only person on the planet who doesnt understand this.

They are not making as much as they want either.
They still have to make up that discrepancy somewhere else.

[dad49er]

It is true that commercial insurance and government socialized coverage engage in the same type of activities. That hasn't ever been the issue. What matters is the scope.

Sure charges are negotiated by both regardless of the provider or payer. All payers try to get the best price. Government has an advantage that it uses. It is called the force of law. The government uses it’s power to get below cost charges in the health care field. That means the provider must make up the loss from government payments by charging others a higher price.

The same applies to denial of service. Both commercial and socialized payers engage in the same type of practices related to health coverage. Both refuse to cover certain conditions. Both limit coverage in many ways. Again, the government has the force of law to enable it to refuse and restrict coverage in a greater way. The choice is some restriction from commercial pays or more restrictions from socialized pays.

The two factors apply to socialized coverage; paying below cost, and paying for fewer services.

Either one results in inferior health care. Both, together result in inadequate health care for the general population.

All the problems in commercial pays are small compared to the same problems in socialized pays.

I'm not so sure. Governments programs do pay less than the private insurance companies.
But there are far fewer people on the government programs than there are people with private insurance.
I don't have the exact figures, but if I am receiving much less from a smaller amount of people it may be less of a loss than receiving a larger amount, but still less than requested from a much larger group of people.

Ex: A $500 less than requested amount from 1,000 people.
Versus:
A $200 less than requested amount from 10,000 people.

[donesprague]

I'm not so sure. Governments programs do pay less than the private insurance companies.
But there are far fewer people on the government programs than there are people with private insurance.
I don't have the exact figures, but if I am receiving much less from a smaller amount of people it may be less of a loss than receiving a larger amount, but still less than requested from a much larger group of people.

Ex: A $500 less than requested amount from 1,000 people.
Versus:
A $200 less than requested amount from 10,000 people.

Look, I understand your previous argument and pointed out your error in understanding the difference between charges, cost, and revenue.

Now I must point out your error about margins.

To a limited extent your are somewhat correct. When you have fewer people who cause you to loose money or lower cost services, you may have less of a loss to make up than if you had many people or higher cost services causing losses.

Go back to the chart Chip posted. See the line in the middle. That represents cost to do business. See the lines above and below the zero line. Those lines are labeled with the word “margin”. The margin is the revenue amounts above cost and the revenue amounts below cost. It doesn’t matter how many people are represented in the chart. What matters is total cost to do business and the amounts above cost and below cost that various payers contribute to pay for doing business. When some pay a total margin amount below cost, some other payers must pay a comparable margin amount above cost to enable the company to stay in business.

Ideally, all payers always pay something above cost (the zero line in Chip’s chart) so the provider has the capability to stay in business and keep up with a growing business demand. Profit isn’t a dirty word. It is necessary for advancement. Without a profit motive, we wouldn’t have all we have. No profit means no investment, no advancement, no improvement, lower quality, less service, and so on and on.


I suggest that you either:

Look up the meaning of the words you are using or study the subject you are discussing before making erroneous statements,

or,

Ask questions so people understand that you have concerns but aren’t certain about your existing level of understanding of the topic.

An erroneous argument presented poorly may irritate people while question may stimulate people to help you learn and arrive at the correct conclusion. That presents a view that you are open to new ideas and are capable of understanding thereby arriving at a correct conclusion.

[donesprague]

Again, Facts refute your opinions.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c113/ChipV/0612costshift_chart1.gif



Commercial insurers arent shifting the cost to anyone.

Understanding Chip's chart.

This is for people like dad49er and socialists who seem to have difficulty understand what it in front of them.



Read the labels of the lines.

TOP LINE: Hospital margins from commercial payers. That represents revenue to the hospital from commercial payers. That includes all money from all sources other than the bottom two lines. It includes individual payment from uninsured as well as insured. It includes from rich and poor.


SECOND FROM TOP LINE: Total. That represents all revenue from all sources. It comes from the other three lines with the word margin in the label.

The flat line in the middle is the cost of doing musiness. It includes all cost from all services as well as building and parking lots and so on and on.

The bottom two lines represent the revenue paid in from the socialized health care government programs. In almost every year, the socialized health care didn't cover hospital cost.

Since socialized health care doesn't cover cost to do busines, the provider must charge the commercial customers more to make up the loss generated from socialism.

Every commercial payer, including uninsured, insured, rich, poor and in the middle must pay more to cover the socialism deficit. Since insurance companies have to pay out more than the actual cost of services they are charged for, they rase rates to cover their higher cost induced by socialism.



The total line shows less than a 5 % operating margin. So that is the amount the socialists have to squeeze to reduce cost without reducing quality of service.

The cost line could be lowered if tort protection tests weren’t required.

The cost line could be lowered if the cost of free stuff was eliminated from the hospital total cost.

The cost line could be lowered if excess greed were throttled.

[dad49er]

Look, I understand your previous argument and pointed out your error in understanding the difference between charges, cost, and revenue.

Now I must point out your error about margins.

To a limited extent your are somewhat correct. When you have fewer people who cause you to loose money or lower cost services, you may have less of a loss to make up than if you had many people or higher cost services causing losses.

Go back to the chart Chip posted. See the line in the middle. That represents cost to do business. See the lines above and below the zero line. Those lines are labeled with the word “margin”. The margin is the revenue amounts above cost and the revenue amounts below cost. It doesn’t matter how many people are represented in the chart. What matters is total cost to do business and the amounts above cost and below cost that various payers contribute to pay for doing business. When some pay a total margin amount below cost, some other payers must pay a comparable margin amount above cost to enable the company to stay in business.

Ideally, all payers always pay something above cost (the zero line in Chip’s chart) so the provider has the capability to stay in business and keep up with a growing business demand. Profit isn’t a dirty word. It is necessary for advancement. Without a profit motive, we wouldn’t have all we have. No profit means no investment, no advancement, no improvement, lower quality, less service, and so on and on.


I suggest that you either:

Look up the meaning of the words you are using or study the subject you are discussing before making erroneous statements,

or,

Ask questions so people understand that you have concerns but aren’t certain about your existing level of understanding of the topic.

An erroneous argument presented poorly may irritate people while question may stimulate people to help you learn and arrive at the correct conclusion. That presents a view that you are open to new ideas and are capable of understanding thereby arriving at a correct conclusion.

I'm learning from both you guys.
Yourself and chip.
Chip and I have clashed on many cases, but I have a lot of respect for him.

I don't see the government as the answer, or a cure all for all the countries needs, but I do think they can play a role in solving the countries ills.

Conversely some seem to think private enterprise and/or tax cuts is a cure for everything, I don't buy that either.

I think a collaborative effort between both is best.

[donesprague]

I'm learning from both you guys.
Yourself and chip.
Chip and I have clashed on many cases, but I have a lot of respect for him.

I don't see the government as the answer, or a cure all for all the countries needs, but I do think they can play a role in solving the countries ills.

Conversely some seem to think private enterprise and/or tax cuts is a cure for everything, I don't buy that either.

I think a collaborative effort between both is best.

Correct, government is necessary. A good government provides the environment that allows people to work individually and collectively as employee and employer.

Without government, we would be open to attack in many forms. Other people could form a mob or government and attack us like the Roman's attacked with conquest as their most important product. All that the Romans had came from their conquests. With the Roman example, we see that the most important activity of any government is national defense.

Government also must protect it citizens from internal threat. No mob member or citizen is more of a citizen than any other. The government is a collective force made up of all the parts, that is, the government is made up of all the citizens. It doesn’t matter what form of government, it is only viable as long as it has either forced or voluntary support and compliance of enough of its mob members or citizens. Bad government has favoritism laws that allow some to take from others. Good governments have basic civil laws that protect life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That means, no murder (the unlawful premeditated killing of one living breathing person by another), no stealing, and other similar type laws.

Now for socialism managed business vs private individuals doing business. It takes people to do the work to make any product or service. People in government do perform services that are best performed by government. Military is best done my government. Police is best done by government. Building cars and other products and services is best done by private individuals who together form a business. They do that when a person has an idea and sells the idea to other people who invest. Then more people are hired and so on until a car or other product or service rolls of the end of the line.

Government can support an environment that allows people to do business or it can stifle business. Allowing one car maker to monopolize the auto industry would be bad government that isn’t being a collaborative partner with business. Allowing a car maker to intentionally install faulty parts in their cars isn’t a good collaborative government partner with business.

A socialists government that competes with it’s citizens is like a monopoly. The mind set of the monopoly workers is different than the mind set of people who are competing on a level field with other people. A monopoly is giving special status to some citizens instead of treating all citizens equally. There isn’t any example of a good socialists monopolists business venture.

A good collaborative government sets some fair rules boundaries and limitations. Too much government is just as bad as too little government.

[joeschmoe]

They reject it because of the simple fact that is conveyed in the comic below:
http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad92/politicsnot/Dolosus_fullsize_E2648D4D-B472-3-1.jpg