Medical Care for Vets have nothing to do with ObamaCare. Forgetting the usually government screw ups, our vets, including Vietnam Vets get good medical care. As a financially successful Vietnam Vet, I always wonder why Medical Care is free for vets for their whole life, even if it is not related to a war injury. That is very generous - if not too generous.
I agree. I think that any vet who has served in WARS should be covered. But I don't see why someone who spent his 20 years sitting behind a desk in Washington or in Fort Gordon in peace time should be covered more than anyone else.
In the other hand, I think the ability to suscribe to such a program as Medicare SHOULD be open to ANYONE. . .not forced on them, just the option of selecting it as opposed to a private insurance.
THAT kind of competition would break the private insurance industry oligopoly which is the "nicer term" for what really amount to price fixing. . .which of course would be illegal, as are monopolies!
And, I bet it would allow medicare to become revenue independent, because it would allow for a much greater pool of people covered (which decrease risks) and also because younger, healthier people being added to the current "elderly, high medical need" population would make the average spending per capita covered MUCH lower. So everyone would benefit from that. . .except the stock holders in private insurance!
Just in case some of you are not familiar with the term, here is a simple explanation:
Oligopolistic competition can give rise to a wide range of different outcomes. In some situations, the firms may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) to raise prices and restrict production in much the same way as a monopoly. Where there is a formal agreement for such collusion, this is known as a cartel. A primary example of such a cartel is OPEC which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.
Does anyone have a any doubt that our system of health care insurance is a license to screw people?
Every Republican praises "private insurances' and thinks government health care is horrible and inefficient! REALLY?
Look at this. Let's say that most of us pay an average of $600 a month in private health care insurance (that includes employer's contribution). And that is for people who have no pre-existing conditions, are between the age of let's say 5 and 60, and have no major health problem. . .and, due to age, are probably not likely to have major health problems for years.
The government insurance (Medicare and Medicaid. . .and veteran care) deals MOSTLY among the most medically fragile population: the elderly, premature babies, pregnant women, people with disabilities, injured veterans). Yet, Medicare costs about $55 a month!
Now, guys. . .which do you think is the most efficient? The industry that asks $600 a month to cover mostly "healthy" population?
Or the government insurance that charges $55 a month to cover the most "medically at risk" population?
Another example:
My husband is 73, and therefore has been on Medicare for 8 years. We are very fortunate that we are able to afford the "cadillac" plan in supplemental insurance (because medicare, as most private insurances, has a 20% co-payment, which we don't want to be liable for, so we decided to pay for supplemental insurance).
Over the last 5 years, my husband has had 4 surgeries, 3 major ones, one minor foot surgery. The total cost of all those surgery and hospitalization was approximately $100,000 dollars.
Medicare covered those surgery at 80%, so, they paid $80,000 and we paid Medicare $55 a month for 5 years which comes to $3,300 for the 5 years
We kept a "supplemental insurance (with Blue Cross/Blue Shield) that paid ALL the co-payments (or $20,000 over the 5 years), because we paid them $195 a month during that time (for a total of $11,700 over the 5 years).
Now. . .I am asking ANYONE who has the vaguest idea about economics principle to assess which investment was more efficient and more profitable for US?
Which investment would you logically make?
Invest $3,300 and get a return of $80,000 (as we did with Medicare)
OR
Invest $11,700 and get a return of $20,000 (as we did with Blue Cross/Blue shield)
Now. . .let us realize that BOTH investments were positive, and that we did make money on both investment (we got more back than what we invested). . .but, come on people. . .it doesn't take a genius to realize that Medicare was a MUCH better bet than Private insurance!
What say you? Do you REALLY want the "government out of your Medicare" like the tea party does?
