Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
Government waste < corporate waste plus corporate profits plus administrative waste.
HTH
I'm sure the estimated direct 10-20% direct fraud of the top of Medicaid (that excludes the additional waste in the program itself) would happen to any private company.
You quote Wikipedia (which quotes close to 10% that an audit found)...I'll reference the GAO, govt auditors, and Eric Holder (Obama's corrupt AG...who should know since the clinic his wife was part owner in got shut down for fraud):
HondoFS...have to admire you. You are so sure of what you believe, facts be damned, and you won't let simple matters of reality get in your way. It's...I have no clue how to describe it.
Where do you see 10-20% fraud in those articles? I see conjecture. And I see "questionable" meaning the same as fraud. No, just because something is questionable doesn't mean it's fraud. And you act like there's no fraud with insurance companies. You also realize that if you read about one fraud, it's general over many years.
Lemming.
Yes, the GAO is all about conjecture, while Wikipedia citations are the gold standard. And yes, there is a lot more in overbilling...the 10-20% is just direct fraud of paying for services never rendered (fake companies, non-existent patients, etc). And only an idiot like you would think a private company would survive doing the same.
You literally have to be the dumbest, most blinded person I have run across...it is truly amazing. Keep working that speed limit IQ of yours...
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
Median income? Lol that's awesome. Median income is meaningless in this exercise.
6% might be too low, but your math isn't close to right.
Mean income is ~$70k, but only idiots like you don't realize that the wealth that skews it higher isn't salary wealth...it's capital gains, dividends, and such which is handled much differently tax-wise.
So you are off anywhere from 500% to 900% on your math, which for someone with a speed limit IQ is still pretty bad. But go ahead and tell yourself you have thought about this seriously...
This was Bernie's plan.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT? HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? This plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year.
THE PLAN WOULD BE FULLY PAID FOR BY: A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers. Revenue raised: $630 billion per year. A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households. Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year. Progressive income tax rates. Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be: 37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000. 43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million. 48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.) 52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.) Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work. Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000. Limit tax deductions for rich. Revenue raised: $15 billion per year. Under Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions. The Responsible Estate Tax. Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax. Savings from health tax expenditures. Revenue raised: $310 billion per year. Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.
Tax you for your health care. Love how he tosses in how few rich people he's trying to victimize by percentage. Of course killing all the farmers is another goal of his ilk. Control the food, starve them out of existence. Fucking commie asshat!
I know this may seem like a foreign concept to you. But we're actually trying to help people by giving then healthcare that they can afford
I know this may be foreign to you but quit making productive people pay for perfectly healthy people that choose not to do jack shit!
The only thing you've ever produced is a bunch of hot air and bullshit.
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
Government waste < corporate waste plus corporate profits plus administrative waste.
HTH
I'm sure the estimated direct 10-20% direct fraud of the top of Medicaid (that excludes the additional waste in the program itself) would happen to any private company.
You quote Wikipedia (which quotes close to 10% that an audit found)...I'll reference the GAO, govt auditors, and Eric Holder (Obama's corrupt AG...who should know since the clinic his wife was part owner in got shut down for fraud):
HondoFS...have to admire you. You are so sure of what you believe, facts be damned, and you won't let simple matters of reality get in your way. It's...I have no clue how to describe it.
Where do you see 10-20% fraud in those articles? I see conjecture. And I see "questionable" meaning the same as fraud. No, just because something is questionable doesn't mean it's fraud. And you act like there's no fraud with insurance companies. You also realize that if you read about one fraud, it's general over many years.
Lemming.
Yes, the GAO is all about conjecture, while Wikipedia citations are the gold standard. And yes, there is a lot more in overbilling...the 10-20% is just direct fraud of paying for services never rendered (fake companies, non-existent patients, etc). And only an idiot like you would think a private company would survive doing the same.
You literally have to be the dumbest, most blinded person I have run across...it is truly amazing. Keep working that speed limit IQ of yours...
Here are the GAO links (interesting going to the source, not a translation). It's almost like you assume every single improper payment is fraud. You do know he difference between the two, right?
Why GAO Did This Study GAO has designated Medicare as a high-risk program, in part because the program's size and complexity make it vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. In 2013, Medicare financed health care services for approximately 51 million individuals at a cost of about $604 billion. The deceptive nature of fraud makes its extent in the Medicare program difficult to measure in a reliable way, but it is clear that fraud contributes to Medicare's fiscal problems. More broadly, in fiscal year 2013, CMS estimated that improper payments—some of which may be fraudulent—were almost $50 billion.
Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2015, Medicare paid $568.9 billion for health care and related services. CMS estimates that $59.6 billion (about 10.5 percent) of that total was paid improperly. To establish and maintain Medicare billing privileges, providers and suppliers must be enrolled in a CMS database known as PECOS. About 1.9 million providers and suppliers were in PECOS as of December 2015, according to CMS.
From your own link: 4Improper payments may be a result of fraud, waste, or abuse. They are any payments that should not have been made or that were made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. This definition includes any payment to an ineligible recipient, any payment for an ineligible good or service, any duplicate payment, any payment for a good or service not received (except where authorized by law), and any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts. Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-204, § 2(e), 124 Stat. 2224, 2227 (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3321 note). Waste includes inaccurate payments for services, such as unintentional duplicate payments. Abuse represents actions inconsistent with acceptable business or medical practices.
And yes, according to the GAO it's ~10% (59.6 billion / 568.9 billion since I'm sure the math will be hard for you), and yes there are many other groups that study it that say it's even worse. Including Eric Holder while he was in office who said 20%.
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.
But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.
tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
From your own link: 4Improper payments may be a result of fraud, waste, or abuse. They are any payments that should not have been made or that were made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. This definition includes any payment to an ineligible recipient, any payment for an ineligible good or service, any duplicate payment, any payment for a good or service not received (except where authorized by law), and any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts. Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-204, § 2(e), 124 Stat. 2224, 2227 (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3321 note). Waste includes inaccurate payments for services, such as unintentional duplicate payments. Abuse represents actions inconsistent with acceptable business or medical practices.
And yes, according to the GAO it's ~10% (59.6 billion / 568.9 billion since I'm sure the math will be hard for you), and yes there are many other groups that study it that say it's even worse. Including Eric Holder while he was in office who said 20%.
HondoFS to the extreme...
You just made my point for me. The best part is, I goaded you into it. That does mean the whole 59.6 billion is fraudulent. If there is a $100 charge that was incorrectly coded that should have been $120, they count the $100 as an incorrect payment. Same if it should have been $80, they don't count the $20 towards this number, they count the whole $100. That's why they came out with ICD-10, to make the coding more accurate.
So the actual amount is far less than $59.6 billion of actual fraud.
In your dreams. These numbers are after the appeal process for the provider, and 3/4 of them are either not being able to provide documentation (after several requests) of why something should have been performed or documentation that it was actually performed, or secondarily not providing documentation (after several requests) that it was medically necessary. Almost none of it is coding errors, and a surprisingly small amount of it is over or under billing.
You can say it's not fraud, but think about it. Can you think of a private company that would end up sending when all is said and done ~10% of its total budget to service providers that in the end could not document/justify why the company sent them a check? It's not that somebody got a scooter or a CPAP machine and coded the form wrong...it's that they billed and got paid by the govt to give (or not) someone a scooter, CPAP machine, minor surgery, etc that they could not medically document need for/proof of it just to generate revenues on their own side. That's absolutely insane...well for normal people.
In private insurance basically every check cut is audited to eliminate this, where with Medicare/Medicaid very few are. It's nuts.
I'm out...I'm sure this won't satisfy your intellectual stupidity however, so have at it...you can have the last comment, and I'm sure you will shock us all with how stupid it will be...
Speaking as someone that has seen extremely wealthy families brought low by medical costs, I'd say you're all fucked unless we change the fundamental basis of our healthcare system.
Watching an elder that is already sick live with the added stress of knowing how long they can afford to live is about as ugly as this life gets.
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
Government waste < corporate waste plus corporate profits plus administrative waste.
HTH
I'm sure the estimated direct 10-20% direct fraud of the top of Medicaid (that excludes the additional waste in the program itself) would happen to any private company.
You quote Wikipedia (which quotes close to 10% that an audit found)...I'll reference the GAO, govt auditors, and Eric Holder (Obama's corrupt AG...who should know since the clinic his wife was part owner in got shut down for fraud):
HondoFS...have to admire you. You are so sure of what you believe, facts be damned, and you won't let simple matters of reality get in your way. It's...I have no clue how to describe it.
Where do you see 10-20% fraud in those articles? I see conjecture. And I see "questionable" meaning the same as fraud. No, just because something is questionable doesn't mean it's fraud. And you act like there's no fraud with insurance companies. You also realize that if you read about one fraud, it's general over many years.
Lemming.
Yes, the GAO is all about conjecture, while Wikipedia citations are the gold standard. And yes, there is a lot more in overbilling...the 10-20% is just direct fraud of paying for services never rendered (fake companies, non-existent patients, etc). And only an idiot like you would think a private company would survive doing the same.
You literally have to be the dumbest, most blinded person I have run across...it is truly amazing. Keep working that speed limit IQ of yours...
This is from your own link:
"...estimated that fraud (and the extra rules and inspections required to fight it) added as much as $98 billion, or roughly 10%, to annual Medicare and Medicaid spending—and up to $272 billion across the entire health system."
10% is the high number for Medicare/Medicaid, which means $174B of fraud is coming from the private sector.
$98B of fraud from $1.191T in spending for care/aid = 8.2%
$174B of fraud from $1.072T in spending for private insurance = 16.2%
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.
But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.
tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
1. UK wait times are often shorter than the US.
2. Dental insurance isn't included in the UK.
My friends say differently and have surgery done in the US for cash because the waits are so long. Seeing a specialist doesn't get yourid surgery done.
Of course they don't have dental have you actually seen those snaggletooth baits? I'll tryti and send a PM explaining the humor in my posts.
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.
But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.
tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.
But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.
tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.
But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.
tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.
Math is hard for morons.
And the explanation is....
The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.
I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.
Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.
That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.
I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.
"I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."
Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.
But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.
tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
Comments
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
Why GAO Did This Study
GAO has designated Medicare as a high-risk program, in part because the program's size and complexity make it vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. In 2013, Medicare financed health care services for approximately 51 million individuals at a cost of about $604 billion. The deceptive nature of fraud makes its extent in the Medicare program difficult to measure in a reliable way, but it is clear that fraud contributes to Medicare's fiscal problems. More broadly, in fiscal year 2013, CMS estimated that improper payments—some of which may be fraudulent—were almost $50 billion.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-560T
Why GAO Did This Study
In fiscal year 2015, Medicare paid $568.9 billion for health care and related services. CMS estimates that $59.6 billion (about 10.5 percent) of that total was paid improperly. To establish and maintain Medicare billing privileges, providers and suppliers must be enrolled in a CMS database known as PECOS. About 1.9 million providers and suppliers were in PECOS as of December 2015, according to CMS.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-703T
From your own link:
4Improper payments may be a result of fraud, waste, or abuse. They are any payments that should not have been made or that were made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. This definition includes any payment to an ineligible recipient, any payment for an ineligible good or service, any duplicate payment, any payment for a good or service not received (except where authorized by law), and any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts. Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-204, § 2(e), 124 Stat. 2224, 2227 (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3321 note). Waste includes inaccurate payments for services, such as unintentional duplicate payments. Abuse represents actions inconsistent with acceptable business or medical practices.
And yes, according to the GAO it's ~10% (59.6 billion / 568.9 billion since I'm sure the math will be hard for you), and yes there are many other groups that study it that say it's even worse. Including Eric Holder while he was in office who said 20%.
HondoFS to the extreme...
But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.
tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
So the actual amount is far less than $59.6 billion of actual fraud.
You can say it's not fraud, but think about it. Can you think of a private company that would end up sending when all is said and done ~10% of its total budget to service providers that in the end could not document/justify why the company sent them a check? It's not that somebody got a scooter or a CPAP machine and coded the form wrong...it's that they billed and got paid by the govt to give (or not) someone a scooter, CPAP machine, minor surgery, etc that they could not medically document need for/proof of it just to generate revenues on their own side. That's absolutely insane...well for normal people.
In private insurance basically every check cut is audited to eliminate this, where with Medicare/Medicaid very few are. It's nuts.
I'm out...I'm sure this won't satisfy your intellectual stupidity however, so have at it...you can have the last comment, and I'm sure you will shock us all with how stupid it will be...
Watching an elder that is already sick live with the added stress of knowing how long they can afford to live is about as ugly as this life gets.
We can do better.
2. Dental insurance isn't included in the UK.
$98B of fraud from $1.191T in spending for care/aid = 8.2%
$174B of fraud from $1.072T in spending for private insurance = 16.2%
Insurance fraud makes up 10% of losses for property/casualty insurance companies. Somehow they still exist.
Of course they don't have dental have you actually seen those snaggletooth baits? I'll tryti and send a PM explaining the humor in my posts.
lol
keep being dumb