🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew A. Alexis:

>> >I do not know specifically, but I would guess that Medicare tends to cover
>> >many more older, sicker people who require a lot more health care.  Medicare
>> >does not cover young, healthy people. 

Rudeboy:

>> Right.  And the single-payer plan will cover *both* sets of people.  How
>> then could it possibly be cheaper?

Andrew again:

>Because the set that Medicare does NOT cover collects more money in taxes/
>payments than are expended on medical services for those people.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean?  Those people not covered by
Medicare are somehow collecting taxes?  Then I should be able to
collect taxes myself!  Fantastic!  I send you your forms immediately.

Or maybe you mean that those people not covered by Medicare are receiving
payments of some kind.  Can you be more specific, please?

>Most of 
>the HMOs do this...the young, healthy members basically subsidize the
>older, sick members.

True enough.  And if you, as a young and healthy person, don't like this
feature of your HMO, you're free to seek another insurance plan.  This, by
the way, is a freedom that a single-payer plan will eliminate for you.

(We can discuss the disadvantages of adverse selection some other time, if
you like.)

Andrew, I *think*, wrote this:

>> >And I would further say that the major benefit of a single-payer
>> >health care plan in California is that the State and County would
>> >benefit, rather than the private insurance companies, from the "profits"
>> >resulting from insurance payments/taxes by young, healthy people who pay
>> >more in health care than they actually use.

Rudeboy again:

>> If the State of California gets the money, it will supposedly be used
>> to provide public goods.  If the insurance companies get the profits,
>> then the owners of the firms (i.e., ordinary people) can use the income
>> to buy whatever they like.  I guess it's a question of who you would
>> like to make your decisions for you...

Andrew:

>Last time I heard, you can vote politicians out of office...but the decision
>makers in insurance companies are not accountable to the public.

No, they're not.  Rather, they are accountable to their customers, who
are free to spend their money on services offered by *other* firms, and
to their shareholders, who can have the directors removed if they see
fit.  Your point?

Humbly yours,
Rudeboy

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Rudeboy, the Voice of a Generation -- ez018982@chip.ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer:   My opinions are the opinions of my employer, my employer's 
 family and friends, and anyone else in the entire world who either has
  or has not met me, unless they specifically tell you otherwise and 
            specify the opinion with which they disagree.
  After having done so, any such individual still holds my opinions,
                whether they care to admit it or not.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-