In the past year

[BanginJimmy]

4) do you think it is honest to have 10 year projections on cost of healthcare with only 6 years of benefits being given out?

I think its pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that with a 10 year projection starting in 2010 you're only getting 6 years of benefits. I don't see how that is dishonest as they are not hiding anything. So, no.

The point I believe he was trying to make was that with only 6 years of benefits and 10 years to spread the cost, it will make the real cost look MUCH lower than it really is.

For Example.

I start the year with a 40k a year budget and I spend 1k a month for the first 6 months and because I am so far under budget I decide to buy a new, bigger house and a brand new car, pushing my spending 5k for the last half. My total spending only looks like 36k a year which is great, I am under budget. But if you actually break it down my budget, which I am trapped in for the next 6 years, is actually 60k a year.

5) do you think introducing 30 million people to the system will cause costs to go up?

That depends on the plan that is passed. Adding 30 or 40 million more people to the private pools will put a hell of a lot more money into the system though. So for the current proposal, no.

Your arent just adding healthy people to the pools though. You are adding AIDS patients and cancer patients whose yearly medical costs could easily top 100k a year.
To make things simple I will say that all 30 mil people will be charged $1000/yr for insurance. That will create about 30B in revenue for the govt. Now, we will say that 1% of those 30M people will have AIDS or cancer, or some other major ailment that costs an average of 100k a year. For just that 1%, or 300K people, you will see 100% of the total budget used up. The other 29.7M people's medical costs along with all of the overhead will have to go on someone else's dime.

1.) You just answered #2 of the above questions here. Yes, UPS and FEd-EX are able to compete by offering more expedient service to the customer at a slightly greater expense. I don't see why private insurance wouldn't be able to compete in the same way.

Because of the govt mandates and additional taxes. It would be like the govt charging UPS an extra $1 per package per day that it was delivered quicker than USPS could do it.

2.) As I understand it there will be tax incentives for companies that provide insurance to their employees. So theres that.

Those tax incentives, if there are any, wont cover half of what providing insurance would.

3.) I think costs are so high because of the army of lawyers the insurance companies have trying to deny claims, and the army of lobbyists they have jockeying for political patronage. Also, the inconsistencies and loopholes in the way services are billed and reimbursed. And theres the rising cost of prescription drugs... Big Pharma also has an army of lawyers and lobbyists to pay and these costs are passed on to hospitals, insurance companies and ultimately, consumers.

If you really think that, you really need to do some research into it. My quick bit of research says the biggest issues are defensive medicine, patients trying to get the newest and most expensive procedures even if other tests are just as good, although not always as pleasant, and medicare/medicaid underpayments.

I think tort reform would be helpful, but Republicans haven't thrown out anything that has stuck.

That would be because the dems have never let a GOP bill onto the floor for debate. Its very easy for the dems to say the GOP hasnt offered a plan when you can control what discussions hit the floor of the chamber or a committee meeting.