Jimmy Kimmel's monologue

[tlynn78]

I would say this string demonstrates the some of the differences between Liberals and Conservatives quite adequately.

Conservatives: Prefer to speak for themselves; prefer to think for themselves.

Liberals: Hey, there's a celebrity, let's let him speak for us. In fact, because his monologue lines up with our talking points, let's make it required listening/watching for every member of Congress.
I wonder where Bob would draw the line there. I suppose "An Inconvenient Truth" would make his required watching list. "Hillary's America," probably not.

[Bob78164]

Oh, goodie! Someone else wants to play. I'll give you the opportunity right here, right now, to demonstrate how you think for yourself.

Please explain how private insurance companies add value to the system. For extra credit, please explain how we know that the profits they earn are justified by the value they add to the system. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Conservatives: Prefer to speak for themselves; prefer to think for themselves.

No.... Conservatives prefer to have their own celebrities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and, until recently, Bill O'Reilly speak for them and tell them what to think.

Then they pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for "independent thinking."

[BackInTex]

For extra credit, please explain how we know that the profits they earn are justified by the value they add to the system. --Bob

Comrade Bobbie, who are the "we" you refer to in your extra credit question? I ask this because I'm sure, in your mind, there is no justification for profits made from any part of the value chain related to an entitlement. Therefore, the question can not be answered to your satisfaction because your worldview is unreasonable and illogical.

[Beebs52]

For extra credit, please explain how we know that the profits they earn are justified by the value they add to the system. --Bob

Comrade Bobbie, who are the "we" you refer to in your extra credit question? I ask this because I'm sure, in your mind, there is no justification for profits made from any part of the value chain related to an entitlement. Therefore, the question can not be answered to your satisfaction because your worldview is unreasonable and illogical.

Nailed it.

[T_Bone0806]

Conservatives: Prefer to speak for themselves; prefer to think for themselves.

And really, who can blame them, when the "celebrity spokespeople" include Ted Nugent and Scott Baio?

Sorry. That was low-hanging fruit.

For the record, I consider some of those "liberal celebrity spokespeople" to be flaming idiots as well. I DO think for myself. I'm a registered Democrat, but I have voted Republican on more than one occasion. I think blindly supporting one party without questioning or examining the "opposition" viewpoint for good ideas is dangerous and stupid. I just don't normally speak out too often. Too many friends and even family on the other side of the fence, and everywhere I turn I'm seeing the disagreements boil over into too much nastiness and hurtful dialogue. Would prefer not to let political disagreements affect relationships. Add to that the fact that not all of my feelings and opinions are completely in one camp or the other, and I would just rather avoid the conflict..

Still, things are hitting too close to home. You can't get much more of a "pre-existing condition" than mine. If I got dropped or had my premiums rise to the point where I cannot afford them, I'd be in a world of trouble. People are saying "Hey, if I'm healthy, why shouldn't MY premiums be lowered and the sick guy pay more?" First, at some point you're likely NOT to be so healthy. Will you still have the same opinion if suddenly YOU can't afford your premium? Second, this translates into tax cuts for higher end folks. And states can change the "ten essential health benefits" insurers are currently required to provide. Yeah, your premiums will likely go down if you're healthy, not so great though if you rely on expensive meds and your state has ok'd insurers not offering prescription coverage. Third, the Upton amendment authorizes funding a "high risk pool" but it is not at all certain that this comes close to covering the fallout. And there's the rub: there has been little comprehensive examination of the possible ramifications of all of this. How much will it actually cost? How many will it actually help/hurt and who will it actually cover? Even Sean Spicer said it was "almost impossible" to determine the impact. Finally, I go back to the "as long as I'm ok" attitude I read from so many. So, if the sick guy is priced out of the market, no worries as long as their wallets are stuffed?

Yes, it's a more complicated set of "what if"'s involved here, I know, but a very real possibility if taken to its worst endgame. I'd last a lot less longer than I would with proper medical/prescription coverage, that is a definite.

But then, if I'm gonna die, then I had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

And no, I am NOT pinning that attitude accusation on every conservative, far from it. But it IS out there...America is getting more cold-hearted and "me first" by the day. Some of the callous remarks made by politicians add fuel to the ultra conservative fire. And yet from what I'm seeing, the "common man" is getting very little out of any of what is being proposed, in the long run. It is very hard to see ANY of the legislation proposed since Mr. Trump took office as being anything beneficial and advantageous to anyone but the rich and powerful. And this health care business is legislative Darwinism...survival of the fittest/richest. But they wave an American flag and bake an apple pie, and tell us that the liberals want to take away all of our guns, and continue to sell themselves as being representative of the common man. And it is swallowed hook, line and sinker.

There's GOT to be a common ground to work from. We need to find it fast.

[Bob78164]

For extra credit, please explain how we know that the profits they earn are justified by the value they add to the system. --Bob

Comrade Bobbie, who are the "we" you refer to in your extra credit question? I ask this because I'm sure, in your mind, there is no justification for profits made from any part of the value chain related to an entitlement. Therefore, the question can not be answered to your satisfaction because your worldview is unreasonable and illogical.

Voters.

Please explain from an economic perspective how private insurance carriers add value to the system. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Please explain from an economic perspective how private insurance carriers add value to the system. --Bob

That's a different question than you've previously asked.

You've been asking: explain to me how private health insurance companies add value to the system

You may need to define "system" and "value" as well. To me, "system" is private enterprise (businesses) and "value" is what the value is to the private enterprises and their employees. If you define "system" as the "healthcare economy", meaning patients and providers, that's something different, as is probably your definition of "value". And that value is different depending on where you fall in the matrix of wealthy or poor, healthy or sick, patient or provider.

And further more, "value is in the eye of the beholder" so as I said earlier, my explanation will not satisfy you because you see no value in something that does not provide something it can not profit from.

[Bob Juch]

For extra credit, please explain how we know that the profits they earn are justified by the value they add to the system. --Bob

Comrade Bobbie, who are the "we" you refer to in your extra credit question? I ask this because I'm sure, in your mind, there is no justification for profits made from any part of the value chain related to an entitlement. Therefore, the question can not be answered to your satisfaction because your worldview is unreasonable and illogical.

Voters.

Please explain from an economic perspective how private insurance carriers add value to the system. --Bob

One of them pays me a shipload of money that my wife, daughter, and I put back into the economy.

[Bob78164]

Comrade Bobbie, who are the "we" you refer to in your extra credit question? I ask this because I'm sure, in your mind, there is no justification for profits made from any part of the value chain related to an entitlement. Therefore, the question can not be answered to your satisfaction because your worldview is unreasonable and illogical.

Voters.

Please explain from an economic perspective how private insurance carriers add value to the system. --Bob

One of them pays me a shipload of money that my wife, daughter, and I put back into the economy.

That money, of course, comes from policyholders who would themselves put the money back into the economy. Why are the services furnished by private insurance companies more valuable than the money paid for those services? Why not simply replace them with Medicare? The efficiencies are obvious: No need for underwriting, little need for advertising, no transition costs for switching carriers (I'm still waiting on more than $3000 from my carrier more than four months after a procedure that was supposed to be free), and no need to provide shareholders a profit. What do private insurance carriers give us that Medicare can't, or doesn't? --Bob

[jarnon]

What do private insurance carriers give us that Medicare can't, or doesn't? --Bob

Medicare can't be all things to everybody. Private insurers fill in the holes, with Medigap policies, HMOs for patients who want them, and optional insurance like dental. The government would be hard pressed to do all that.

And Medicare for the elderly is almost mandatory, because it would be foolish to refuse the benefits you've already paid for your whole life. Expanded Medicare, presumably, would have competitive premiums, and some patients would choose private insurance or no insurance.

[Bob78164]

What do private insurance carriers give us that Medicare can't, or doesn't? --Bob

Medicare can't be all things to everybody. Private insurers fill in the holes, with Medigap policies, HMOs for patients who want them, and optional insurance like dental. The government would be hard pressed to do all that.

And Medicare for the elderly is almost mandatory, because it would be foolish to refuse the benefits you've already paid for your whole life. Expanded Medicare, presumably, would have competitive premiums, and some patients would choose private insurance or no insurance.

There's every reason to think that expanded Medicare, which has much better medical expense ratios than private insurance, would be less expensive than private insurance. No need to pay for advertising. No need to provide a profit to shareholders. Lots of market power to negotiate rates with providers. And that's under current law, which explicitly forbids Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices. But no insurance shouldn't be an option for those who can afford it, just as driving without insurance isn't an option in most states. After all, if you find yourself needing emergency care, you will get it, whether you can pay for it or not. So it's not fair to allow people to free ride and then declare bankruptcy (thereby shifting the cost to others) if you lose the gamble.

HMOs such as Kaiser already accept Medicare and Medi-Cal. This I know from personal experience. I have no issue with private insurers filling in the holes to provide care that is outside the scope of Medicare coverage. I'm even okay with private insurers competing with Medicare, if they can do so. I guess what I'm saying is that I really wish Joe Lieberman hadn't singlehandedly scotched the public option from the Affordable Care Act. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Voters.

Please explain from an economic perspective how private insurance carriers add value to the system. --Bob

One of them pays me a shipload of money that my wife, daughter, and I put back into the economy.

That money, of course, comes from policyholders who would themselves put the money back into the economy. Why are the services furnished by private insurance companies more valuable than the money paid for those services? Why not simply replace them with Medicare? The efficiencies are obvious: No need for underwriting, little need for advertising, no transition costs for switching carriers (I'm still waiting on more than $3000 from my carrier more than four months after a procedure that was supposed to be free), and no need to provide shareholders a profit. What do private insurance carriers give us that Medicare can't, or doesn't? --Bob

I hope you realize I'm being facetious. As I said the other day, I'm in favor of a single-payer system even though it might affect my current employment. There are many other jobs. I do favor a system based on the TRICARE model where private insurance companies do the claims handling for different regions of the country.

[BackInTex]

Unbelievable. Bobbie thinks the US Post Office is better than UPS or Fed-ex, and he is willing to put his life on the line for it.

[TheConfessor]

Unbelievable. Bobbie thinks the US Post Office is better than UPS or Fed-ex, and he is willing to put his life on the line for it.

So does Amazon, apparently. At least they chose the USPS to deliver my last few packages. And good luck getting UPS of FedEx to deliver a letter to anywhere in the country for 49 cents, like the USPS will.

[Bob78164]

Unbelievable. Bobbie thinks the US Post Office is better than UPS or Fed-ex, and he is willing to put his life on the line for it.

Are you flirting with me?

I just think Medicare is better than all of those insurance companies who screwed their customers in pursuit of profits. --Bob

[Beebs52]

FYI, here is one of the insurance companies administering medicare (ours).

https://www.novitas-solutions.com

[BackInTex]

Unbelievable. Bobbie thinks the US Post Office is better than UPS or Fed-ex, and he is willing to put his life on the line for it.

So does Amazon, apparently. At least they chose the USPS to deliver my last few packages. And good luck getting UPS of FedEx to deliver a letter to anywhere in the country for 49 cents, like the USPS will.

You get what you pay for.

I routinely get mail, important mail, for folks that live next door (and I'll give the USPS a low but passing grade for that, at least they were close....removed the wrong kidney for donation, but at lease it wasn't my liver). But I also routinely get important mail (checks, investment account statements, etc.) for folks that live 5 -10 miles from me. The only similarity in our addresses is the zip code. Different names, different street name, and sometimes a 4-digit address while mine is 5-digit.

Also, we sent out a lot of invitations last fall (shower and wedding). I estimate about 15% of the shower and 5% of the wedding invitations did not get to the addressees. We even had one returned as undeliverable even though the address was the correct one and exactly like the Christmas cards that did get delivered (it was my wife's sister).

I would not want them giving me medical care at that service level.

[BackInTex]

And good luck getting UPS of FedEx to deliver a letter to anywhere in the country for 49 cents, like the USPS will.

One more thought.

Personally, I want good affordable healthcare, with good being a higher priority than affordable.

You can have the cheap healthcare.

[jarnon]

I would not want them giving me medical care at that service level.

You're confusing medical insurance with medical care (and you know the difference since you've mentioned it more than once). In my experience, government bureaucrats are just as incompetent to make medical decisions as insurance company hacks. I'd prefer if everybody lets doctors do their job.

As for medical care, my brother-in-law, a Vietnam and Navy Reserve vet, has been in VA and private hospitals, and the non-government care was much better.

[BackInTex]

I would not want them giving me medical care at that service level.

You're confusing medical insurance with medical care (and you know the difference since you've mentioned it more than once).

Mixing maybe, but not confusing. If we go to a single payer (insurance) system, essentially it is government health care (not insurance). The providers may not on paper be government employees, but if their pay rates are set by the government, their approved procedures are directed by the government, and the checks come from the government, they are government (contract) healthcare providers. Not everyone who delivers your mail is a USPS employee. We get a contractor delivering to us regularly.

[Bob Juch]

Unbelievable. Bobbie thinks the US Post Office is better than UPS or Fed-ex, and he is willing to put his life on the line for it.

So does Amazon, apparently. At least they chose the USPS to deliver my last few packages. And good luck getting UPS of FedEx to deliver a letter to anywhere in the country for 49 cents, like the USPS will.

You get what you pay for.

I routinely get mail, important mail, for folks that live next door (and I'll give the USPS a low but passing grade for that, at least they were close....removed the wrong kidney for donation, but at lease it wasn't my liver). But I also routinely get important mail (checks, investment account statements, etc.) for folks that live 5 -10 miles from me. The only similarity in our addresses is the zip code. Different names, different street name, and sometimes a 4-digit address while mine is 5-digit.

Also, we sent out a lot of invitations last fall (shower and wedding). I estimate about 15% of the shower and 5% of the wedding invitations did not get to the addressees. We even had one returned as undeliverable even though the address was the correct one and exactly like the Christmas cards that did get delivered (it was my wife's sister).

I would not want them giving me medical care at that service level.

No one is saying they want government-provided healthcare as the VA does. (Well not many, anyway.)

[Bob Juch]

FYI, here is one of the insurance companies administering medicare (ours).

https://www.novitas-solutions.com

And don't forget the private insurance companies for Medicare Parts C through N.

[Bob78164]

I would not want them giving me medical care at that service level.

You're confusing medical insurance with medical care (and you know the difference since you've mentioned it more than once).

Mixing maybe, but not confusing. If we go to a single payer (insurance) system, essentially it is government health care (not insurance). The providers may not on paper be government employees, but if their pay rates are set by the government, their approved procedures are directed by the government, and the checks come from the government, they are government (contract) healthcare providers. Not everyone who delivers your mail is a USPS employee. We get a contractor delivering to us regularly.

That's a reasonable concern, but I think it's addressed by making Medicare available for all but not mandatory for anyone who wants private insurance instead. At a minimum it should be available on any exchange where 0 (or 1) private insurers choose to participate. --Bob

[jarnon]

Look what happened here! A reasoned discussion of the advantages and pitfalls of single payer, not the usual name calling. I'm glad I participated. Let's have a group hug!