Relevant to VRA's last post, the following is the assertion regarding Alemeda Power and no evidence has be offered to substantiate the claim.
"Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?"
You know, there's plenty of people who I may disagree with at times who are very honest people, so I'd rather deal with them.
You are accusing me of being dishonest?
Sorry for that as I said it in the heat of the moment, however let's just say that I think it's best that we not attempt to dialogue simply for reasons that are not new. However, that's still no excuse for me being rude, so I do apologize.
Accepted.
But I really think it was simply an unfortunate choice of terminology. Clearly we are looking at this differently. Having served in the managment of a very large private construction organization for over three decades, I am accutely aware of what the term 'overhead' means in private industry, as well as terms like gross and net profit. So I am aware that both the general newsmedia and liberal rhetoric treat these terms very differently.
I am sure that not only you and I, but Medicare and the private medical insurance industry are treating the term 'overhead' differently.
That is probably the best statement in all the Medicare vs Private Ins overhead debate.
Whether you receive $5000 or $50,000 of care in a given year, the "overhead" for that care is the same (given that both patients have the same number of visits. Medicare patient will always incur higher costs).
The real facts are the elderly use more of the healthcare system per captia at higher dollar amounts for the same administrative costs.
Its really pretty simple math.
If two people both access healthcare at the above amounts for the same number of visits, the overhead is indentical but the overhead percentage is drastically different as evidenced by vra's posts.
Further I will give you this real life example. Much of the overhead costs in private insurance is caused by Medicare regs. We are visited by our accredatiion people once a year.
In 2009 there were an additional 7 updates or new regualtions in regard to HIPAA. In 2010 there were 57 new updates and regualtions. All of these regualtions must be implemented by providers. In order to keep up with new regs and accreditation a facility with more than 6 practitioners will hire a compliance officer to keep them in compliance.
After issuing the regulation, Medicare hands off the enforcement to an outside agency (JCAHO for example). They come in once a year for you to maintain your accreditation and charge you about $10,000 - $20,000.
Medicare only sends down the regualtion. The adherence to and enforcement of these regualtions are farmed out and no overhead expense to Medicare.
Any man can count the seeds in an apple.... .......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.
Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?
Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.
It's your claim why don't you explain it?
And why did TVA provide electricity for decades at rates way below what surrounding power companies charged.
(Do you really expect me to believe that there is a power company out there that operates with no subsidies?)
It was your claim, I simply provided factual information that refutes your claim that "...governments operate on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion."
You made the claim not I, you even said that it is 'ludicrous' to argue against it, and then I presented factual information regarding two power companies (one government owned and the other private) that operate side-by-side in the same market, and even with the advantage of scale, government subsidies and the much higher rates PG&E charges in San Francisco, San Rafael and the well to do cities of the San Francisco Penninsula, Alameda operates on a far lower overhead and keeps their equipment in A-1 shape, while PG&E has received subsidies, cheated rate payers, refused to pay the City of San Francisco billions in debt to the city, complains it needs to raise rates to provide adequate maintenance, and so on and so on!
Alameda Power and Light, a city-owned power company, operates with no subsidies and charges low rates and keeps its equipment in excellent shape.
F.O., what you are seeking here simply will not be handled in the way one would expect in a serious discussion. What we find are two people who simply will not accept anything that you may provide, but they also will not provide one speck of evidence from any source. From their position, they're right, you're wrong, and they don't have to provide anything to support their position. Nothing. Nada. Just take their word for it and that should be enough. Sorry, but that doesn't "sail" with me, and I refuse any longer to have anything to do with either of them, especially since this has been their m.o. many times before. In an honest discussion, both sides have some obligation to show evidence and logic, but they supply neither.
I had apologized for being rude, which I was, but I don't apologize for asserting the simple fact that it they are not being forthright in this "discussion". It is not just up to us to present the evidence, and they have made one assertion after another after another without posting one shred of evidence to support them-- not one.
But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.
Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?
Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.
It's your claim why don't you explain it?
And why did TVA provide electricity for decades at rates way below what surrounding power companies charged.
(Do you really expect me to believe that there is a power company out there that operates with no subsidies?)
It was your claim, I simply provided factual information that refutes your claim that "...governments operate on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion."
You made the claim not I, you even said that it is 'ludicrous' to argue against it, and then I presented factual information regarding two power companies (one government owned and the other private) that operate side-by-side in the same market, and even with the advantage of scale, government subsidies and the much higher rates PG&E charges in San Francisco, San Rafael and the well to do cities of the San Francisco Penninsula, Alameda operates on a far lower overhead and keeps their equipment in A-1 shape, while PG&E has received subsidies, cheated rate payers, refused to pay the City of San Francisco billions in debt to the city, complains it needs to raise rates to provide adequate maintenance, and so on and so on!
Alameda Power and Light, a city-owned power company, operates with no subsidies and charges low rates and keeps its equipment in excellent shape.
The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction... Neil Gaiman 'American Gods'
But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.
Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?
Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.
And much the same historically could be said about T.V.A., the building of which was done through public coffers because the private investors didn't consider it to be likely profitable enough. Well, it did prove out to be quite lucrative after all, and the Republicans in the 50's demanded that Eisenhower sell it to private investors, but he refused. Too late-- too bad.
At the same time that TVA was building hydroelectric dams on the Tennessee River, Duke Power Co. was doing the same on the Catawba River. While Duke rate payers had to pay for the dams, the TVA dams were paid for by the nation's Federal taxpayers, nationwide.
Trying to compare government accounting to private industry accounting is difficult at best.
You know, there's plenty of people who I may disagree with at times who are very honest people, so I'd rather deal with them.
You are accusing me of being dishonest?
Sorry for that as I said it in the heat of the moment, however let's just say that I think it's best that we not attempt to dialogue simply for reasons that are not new. However, that's still no excuse for me being rude, so I do apologize.
Accepted.
But I really think it was simply an unfortunate choice of terminology. Clearly we are looking at this differently. Having served in the managment of a very large private construction organization for over three decades, I am accutely aware of what the term 'overhead' means in private industry, as well as terms like gross and net profit. So I am aware that both the general newsmedia and liberal rhetoric treat these terms very differently.
I am sure that not only you and I, but Medicare and the private medical insurance industry are treating the term 'overhead' differently.
You know, there's plenty of people who I may disagree with at times who are very honest people, so I'd rather deal with them.
You are accusing me of being dishonest?
Sorry for that as I said it in the heat of the moment, however let's just say that I think it's best that we not attempt to dialogue simply for reasons that are not new. However, that's still no excuse for me being rude, so I do apologize.
Let me recommend that a couple of people here do your own homework-- it's all out there. And simple logic by itself should tell anyone that if our costs are the highest in the world but our results aren't that impressive, there's a problem-- and it has to be mostly with the private sector if one were to actually do some studying. But, no, actually trying to look something up using something other than a right-wing blog is just asking way too much for a couple of people here, which is why I really don't like dealing with those who do as such.
vra, I think we have done this dance before, but maybe not.
Lets use Canada. But it could be the UK. The cost of healthcare against their GDP is not a fair comparison with the US because they do not account for those on the que in those countries. There are no waiting lists here as their are there for those reasons.
The reasons for waiting lines in Canada for instance is due to one of three things:
Money (from the govt)
Facility availability
Physician availability
A fair percentage of Canadians wait on health care. A country of 30million with easily 5 million waiting on surgery.
It is not a valid point that Canadians consider their wait times reasonable. The point of the discussion with regard to GDP is money spent in a given framework of time, not a need base, of which their govt has set guidelines for those as obama wishes to do here.
Look at it this way and tell me if you think this a fair measure:
Lets say the govt's fiscal year ends Sept 30.
On that day, we count the people on each country's waiting list for the variables described above.
In the US, the number would be -0-.
In Canada it could be 4 million (literally).
Adjusted for popualtion desceprencies, both countries spent $10 billion on health care.
Would this be an accurate display of healthcare costs vs GDP?
Why or why not?
My point here, is that if Canada spends 13% and the US spends 19%, you say that we spend more per capita on healthcare costs than Canada by 6%.
But that would be wrong. You would have to add back the 4million to the Canadian side of the ledger for the various specialties. Those 4 million would have received healthcare in the US and it would subsequently be added to those cost.
Because the US has no waiting line, the numbers penalize the US for giving the care. If we were to develop a waiting line for healthcare, our GDP vs HC numbers would conversely drop.
In 2006, the real numbers were :
The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%
So you're looking at 5.3% difference. Add back those on the waiting line and its pretty close to even, except in Canada you still have to wait.
Any man can count the seeds in an apple.... .......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
