ex-CIGNA executive interview - must see

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Well Moyers showed the interview again because it was so popular, so what the heck on a repost, very worth seeing.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Well Moyers showed the interview again because it was so popular, so what the heck on a repost, very worth seeing.

all agree with that sentiment at least. It also inspired me to watch sicko, which is probably the most depressing movie i've ever seen, and that was in the week that i saw schindler's list and requiem for a dream.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Craig234
Well Moyers showed the interview again because it was so popular, so what the heck on a repost, very worth seeing.

all agree with that sentiment at least. It also inspired me to watch sicko, which is probably the most depressing movie i've ever seen, and that was in the week that i saw schindler's list and requiem for a dream.

Wow:) I thought Requiem for a Dream was a mess, but a friend of mine was practically traumatized by how bad they thought it was.
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,263
202
106
The medical loss ratio relates directly to profits. 95% went to medical in the early 90's, down to less than 80% currently. The rest is profit or goes to the shareholders. Also consider that insurance premiums are up how many hundreds of percent X that ratio being 4X higher. The less than 5% profit number being pushed is total BS. Maybe profit within the company, but not when you include dividends to shareholders. All the more reason for a public option or even better, a new single payer system.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
People like this come out every several years. The problem is more stay in and/or companies hire better people and make them seem crazy and they were not good.

Look at CBS when they did not allow a story about the tobacco person that left the company after the tobacco companies said they would sue and not spend any money with them.
 

vulcanman

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
614
0
0
I think the shocker is the gullibility of the general public. I heard about this guy who was standing in line for free healthcare and was STILL vehemently opposed to government involvement.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

I haven't watched the video, but does this guy admit the existence of Sarah Palin's death panels--at private insurance companies?
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
I watched Sicko recently too. Although I don't like Moore at all, there are some valid points made in there.
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,263
202
106
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I haven't watched the video, but does this guy admit the existence of Sarah Palin's death panels--at private insurance companies?

They brought up a case of Cigna denying a liver transplant, I believe the girl involved died. he also talked about how the investors drive the insurance companies to cut people from the roles based on medical loss ratios (%of premiums that go towards medical costs).
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,491
10,931
136
Can't see the video, is it the Potter guy who was something-or-other in media relations? If so, he's got some very interesting tales to tell about the industry and you can see it still going on today.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Even with health care is there enough doctors to fix all these broken Americans?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Even with health care is there enough doctors to fix all these broken Americans?

No. Even with these kind of shenanigans this guy "reveals" they are still eeking out 4% profit margins. Forcing healthcare expansion without fixing the supply problem will lead to rationing (for the "public option") and price distortions (i.e. higher prices).
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,263
202
106
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Even with health care is there enough doctors to fix all these broken Americans?

No. Even with these kind of shenanigans this guy "reveals" they are still eeking out 4% profit margins. Forcing healthcare expansion without fixing the supply problem will lead to rationing (for the "public option") and price distortions (i.e. higher prices).

BS, he talked specifically about medical loss ratios. In the 90's about 5% went to overhead and shareholders. Presently it is over 20%. What has changed other than shareholders and execs getting higher dividends and salaries? Health insurance costs have gone up a few hundred percent since then, and the percentage of that total not going to medical bills has gone up about 15%. That easily works out to a few hundred percent increase in monies going towards admin costs such as base salaries, advertising and lobbying, executive bonuses and shareholder dividends. I would bet the latter three take the largest chunk.

The same was said of the oil companies, though they seem to produce record profits each year.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Even with health care is there enough doctors to fix all these broken Americans?

No. Even with these kind of shenanigans this guy "reveals" they are still eeking out 4% profit margins. Forcing healthcare expansion without fixing the supply problem will lead to rationing (for the "public option") and price distortions (i.e. higher prices).

BS, he talked specifically about medical loss ratios. In the 90's about 5% went to overhead and shareholders. Presently it is over 20%. What has changed other than shareholders and execs getting higher dividends and salaries? Health insurance costs have gone up a few hundred percent since then, and the percentage of that total not going to medical bills has gone up about 15%. That easily works out to a few hundred percent increase in monies going towards admin costs such as base salaries, advertising and lobbying, executive bonuses and shareholder dividends. I would bet the latter three take the largest chunk.

The same was said of the oil companies, though they seem to produce record profits each year.

Since the 90s life expectancy has gone up 3-5 years for Americans, not to mention that with economic growth and better standard of living more people can afford healthcare, so of course healthcare costs have gone up. Of course admin costs have gone up since the 90s, accountants, lawyers, etc etc all charge more money because economic activity has gone up.

You are assuming by taking medicine public and removing the "20% admin" costs, you reduce costs. You assume government is efficient and has accountability. They don't. They operate on budgets, and their goal is to overspend so the following year they can ask for more money. You replace private administration with lazy government union labor.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Even with health care is there enough doctors to fix all these broken Americans?

No. Even with these kind of shenanigans this guy "reveals" they are still eeking out 4% profit margins. Forcing healthcare expansion without fixing the supply problem will lead to rationing (for the "public option") and price distortions (i.e. higher prices).

"Reveals"? I sincerely hope there is a hell.

Eeke?

""Profits at 10 of the country?s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets."

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05...-create-near-monopoly/



Take a look at a recent report "Insuring Health or Ensuring Profit?; A look at the Financial Gains of Washington's Health Insurers." According to the report, the big three carriers in Washington, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. Their cash surplus went from $833 million in 2002 to $2.2 billion (with a "B") in 2006. Interestingly enough they did it while covering less people. Over 2.37 million people were covered by the three in 2002 compared to 1.9 million in 2006.

http://vancouver.injuryboard.c...r.aspx?googleid=230780"

Oh yeah, 1000% increase.. how do they EAT AND SLEEP on that !?!?!?!?


And yeah, we couldn't possibly train more doctors.


 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
People like this come out every several years. The problem is more stay in and/or companies hire better people and make them seem crazy and they were not good.

Look at CBS when they did not allow a story about the tobacco person that left the company after the tobacco companies said they would sue and not spend any money with them.

That's because our corporations are, as the excellent movie 'The Corporation' explaines, psychopathic in nature for profits, and that's their job.

It's the job of government to represent the public interest and put boundaries around corporations, not the job of corporaitons to act 'nice'.

They're legally obligated to put shareholder profits before anything else, within the law.

Some of us think they're out of control now, but that's another topic.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Even with health care is there enough doctors to fix all these broken Americans?

No. Even with these kind of shenanigans this guy "reveals" they are still eeking out 4% profit margins. Forcing healthcare expansion without fixing the supply problem will lead to rationing (for the "public option") and price distortions (i.e. higher prices).

"Reveals"? I sincerely hope there is a hell.

Eeke?

""Profits at 10 of the country?s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets."

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05...-create-near-monopoly/



Take a look at a recent report "Insuring Health or Ensuring Profit?; A look at the Financial Gains of Washington's Health Insurers." According to the report, the big three carriers in Washington, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. Their cash surplus went from $833 million in 2002 to $2.2 billion (with a "B") in 2006. Interestingly enough they did it while covering less people. Over 2.37 million people were covered by the three in 2002 compared to 1.9 million in 2006.

http://vancouver.injuryboard.c...r.aspx?googleid=230780"

Oh yeah, 1000% increase.. how do they EAT AND SLEEP on that !?!?!?!?


And yeah, we couldn't possibly train more doctors.

Look up "profit margins."

And no, we can't train doctors. There only a few spots open in med school, and the AMA has a strangle on the supply of it.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
You are assuming by taking medicine public and removing the "20% admin" costs, you reduce costs. You assume government is efficient and has accountability. They don't. They operate on budgets, and their goal is to overspend so the following year they can ask for more money. You replace private administration with lazy government union labor.

You've never worked for Government. I have. Budgets are slashed and cut all of the time. People get laid off. Requests for more money are ignored. Grant requests are highly competitive.

The Government is actually quite efficient when you get outside of sacred cows like the military where they can get away with $1000 toilet seats.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: SammyJrThe Government is actually quite efficient when you get outside of sacred cows like the military where they can get away with $1000 toilet seats.

You can also add education to the list of inefficient sacred cows, right next to the military.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: SammyJr
Originally posted by: JS80
You are assuming by taking medicine public and removing the "20% admin" costs, you reduce costs. You assume government is efficient and has accountability. They don't. They operate on budgets, and their goal is to overspend so the following year they can ask for more money. You replace private administration with lazy government union labor.

You've never worked for Government. I have. Budgets are slashed and cut all of the time. People get laid off. Requests for more money are ignored. Grant requests are highly competitive.

The Government is actually quite efficient when you get outside of sacred cows like the military where they can get away with $1000 toilet seats.

I don't need to work for government. I look at facts.