Health bill will hold down costs for 20 years... What's the new excuse?

[shadow9d9]

I've already posted the 'ungodly' amount of exec pay, in this thread IIRC. It's a pretty small amount in total.

So the senate says there is a "ton" of wasteful spending going on? Firstly I doubt that it is a "ton", if it was you'd be killing it's profits and stock price. Secondly, when it comes to wasteful spending, our government is second to nobody.

Besides, (1) this legislation does nothing to address that (supposed) problem, and (2) no one has calculated the savings from single payer to prove that private HC insurance companies are the cause of our problem.

But lets suppose whatever bill emerges has a single payer provision; what are we gonna do about:

(1) all the people in that industry now put out of work? And

(2) the loss in 401(k) plans and stock investments of those people in this country that own shares in HC insurance companies?

Fern

It goes much more beyond just exec pay.

There will not be a single payer option.

 

[blackangst1]

It goes much more beyond just exec pay.

There will not be a single payer option.

Then why is that seemingly one of the, if not the, biggest complaints when, as has been pointed out, it is a such a small fraction of expenses its virtually irrelevant?

 

[shadow9d9]

Then why is that seemingly one of the, if not the, biggest complaints when, as has been pointed out, it is a such a small fraction of expenses its virtually irrelevant?

Please rewrite that into english.

 

[Zebo]

Anyone who believes this is a damn fool.
A) I pay $870 a month for family of 5 wife had lupus so it's kinda higher than norm but not too much
B) when law comes in I will pay zero until someone gets sick then get a policy because penalty for not having one is a fine of only $75 a year.
c) Since insurance Cos can not discriminate they HAVE to take us at a now reduced rate even say $600.
d) Insurance Cos will all go bankrupt since their business model is destroyed by no one paying premiums until they get sick.
e) Government will start by bailing out Ins cos then, when this is found unsustainable, simply pick up the tab.
f) And the way govt does things, paying full price, not negotiating with the powers that line their campaign pockets it will bankrupt USA once and for all.

I am for NHC BTW - just not the whacked way we are going to do it instead of looking abroad at models that work and have worked for generations we are going to break USA.

 

[palehorse]

Read another article today indicating that the CBO has stated that, under the latest Senate plan, insurance premiums will actually go UP for people who do not receive insurance through an employer.

woops.

 

[palehorse]

It goes much more beyond just exec pay.

There will not be a single payer option.

You're damn right that it goes well beyond executive pay. In fact, their pay has absolutely nothing to do with our problems. Health insurance executive pay and insurance company net profits, combined, account for less than half of one percent of total annual U.S. expenditures on healthcare.

 

[shadow9d9]

You're damn right that it goes well beyond executive pay. In fact, their pay has absolutely nothing to do with our problems. Health insurance executive pay and insurance company net profits, combined, account for less than half of one percent of total annual U.S. expenditures on healthcare.

Citation needed.

 

[palehorse]

Citation needed.

Not so much. The math has been demonstrated in these very forums more than once. You're comparing a few measly 10's of millions for their pay and net profits, versus $2.8 trillion in total expenditures. It comes out to something like 0.4%, combined, which is why that particular talking point has always been so damn pointless.

The focus for healthcare reform, and the basis for any worthwhile discussion, should be the real problems in our system, not the executive pay that doesn't amount to shit.

Now, if you're smart enough to realize that their gross profits are being thrown into the pit of real problems plaguing the system, then we could begin to have an honest discussion... but, as long as you harp on their net profits and pay, we're not going to get anywhere.

You do know the difference, don't you?

 

[shadow9d9]

Not so much. The math has been demonstrated in these very forums more than once. You're comparing a few measly 10's of millions for their pay and net profits, versus $2.8 trillion in total expenditures. It comes out to something like 0.4%, which is why that particular talking point has always been so damn pointless.

The focus for healthcare reform, and the basis for any worthwhile discussion, should be the real problems in our system, not the executive pay that doesn't amount to shit.

Now, if you're smart enough to realize that their gross profits are being thrown into the pit of real problems plaguing the system, then we could begin to have an honest discussion... but, as long as you harp on their net profits and pay, we're not going to get anywhere.

You do know the difference, don't you?

So, you have no citation for your numbers...

And I'm pretty sure that denial of benefits and "pre-existing conditions" are solely the product of profit based insurance... considering their ceos said so and no other first world country has it... That should be the number 1 focus of healthcare reform.

 

[palehorse]

So, you have no citation for your numbers...

And I'm pretty sure that denial of benefits and "pre-existing conditions" are solely the product of profit based insurance... considering their ceos said so and no other first world country has it... That should be the number 1 focus of healthcare reform.

Those numbers are based on the public disclosure of health insurance company profits and executive salaries. Any 5th grader could tell you that comparing a few tens of millions to trillions is going to give you a very small percentage; which, in this case, is less than half of one percent.

For some reason the damn search function won't work for me here (keeps asking for me to login), but I seem to recall someone here breaking down every single figure for all of the health insurance companies a few months ago, and the combined executive salaries and net profits accounted for less than 0.4% of the $2.8 trillion we spent in 2008 on healthcare.

Since you apparently need it spelled out for you: that means that the "record gross profits" at the health insurance companies are being spent somewhere else in the system, on something else in the system. It's not the salaries, bonuses, or any other aspect of the net profits that are the problem. It's the hundreds of billions in added costs that lie somewhere else in the system. The hidden or mystery expenditures I'm referring to are the reason why health insurance company net profits sit consistently between a measly 3 and 6%. They are more than likely the result of inefficiencies, lawsuits, treatment costs, and other exorbitant amounts lying elsewhere in our healthcare system that cause the insurance companies to blow the vast majority of their gross profits internally.

Get this through your thick skull though: Health insurance net profits and executive salaries have next to nothing to do with our current problems unless your entire goal is to solve a measly 0.4% of our problem.

Is that it? Is that your goal?

Nobody is arguing against the need to cover pre-existing conditions, or the screwed up practices surrounding their lack of coverage now, but harping on CEO salaries is the wrong talikng point to use to make that point.

 

[shadow9d9]

Those numbers are based on the public disclosure of health insurance company profits and executive salaries. Any 5th grader could tell you that comparing a few tens of millions to trillions is going to give you a very small percentage; which, in this case, is less than half of one percent.

For some reason the damn search function won't work for me here (keeps asking for me to login), but I seem to recall someone here breaking down every single figure for all of the health insurance companies a few months ago, and the combined executive salaries and net profits accounted for less than 0.4% of the $2.8 trillion we spent in 2008 on healthcare.

Since you apparently need it spelled out for you: that means that the "record gross profits" at the health insurance companies are being spent somewhere else in the system, on something else in the system. It's not the salaries, bonuses, or any other aspect of the net profits that are the problem. It's the hundreds of billions in added costs that lie somewhere else in the system. The hidden or mystery expenditures I'm referring to are the reason why health insurance company net profits sit consistently between a measly 3 and 6%. They are more than likely the result of inefficiencies, lawsuits, treatment costs, and other exorbitant amounts lying elsewhere in our healthcare system that cause the insurance companies to blow the vast majority of their gross profits internally.

Get this through your thick skull though: Health insurance net profits and executive salaries have next to nothing to do with our current problems unless your entire goal is to solve a measly 0.4% of our problem.

Is that it? Is that your goal?

Nobody is arguing against the need to cover pre-existing conditions, or the screwed up practices surrounding their lack of coverage now, but harping on CEO salaries is the wrong talikng point to use to make that point.

I never singled out the salaries. Someone else did, and I pointed out that there were more than just salaries associated with their "business" that isn't included in profits. Therefore, the numbers are misleading.

And yes, health insurance is the problem... Unless 15% of Americans being without insurance and countless millions of others being denied rightful care or excluded based on profits isn't a problem.

Maybe the talks should be renamed health insurance reform. I'm not in charge of that.


Until you get back with evidence of the numbers you claim and how they came about, I cannot comment much beyond that,

I can say, however, that hospitals and doctors are forced to bill things very highly just so that when the insurances refuse and pay less, they are still compensated well. Everyone without insurance is put in the position of paying for these exorbitant purposefully non realistic prices.

This is again an insurance related problem.

 

[rudder]

"Some groups" = conservative think tanks...

CBO projected 1 trillion.

"Obamacare" doesn't exist, since he is not constructing the bill.

Next?

Sure the CATO institute is pro free market... but they don't take side. They bashed Bush just as much as they praised him. Just depended on the policy.

One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019). Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/medicare-fraudsters-rake-in-billions/

Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, who heads the Justice Department's criminal division, told the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on crime and drugs in May that 3 percent to 10 percent of the $800 billion spent on Medicare and Medicaid each year "is lost to waste, fraud and abuse."

And Obamacare will be free from such fraud, waste, and abuse?

And the plan expects to make $150 billion in fines from people breaking the law.

Face it... this bill sucks.

 

[Bateluer]

What will the next talking point be, now that "it doesn't reduce costs" is out of the equation?

You do know that the health care bills in Congress right now are riddled with lies, loop holes, coverage decreases, cost increases, and political BS, right?

 

[shadow9d9]

Sure the CATO institute is pro free market... but they don't take side. They bashed Bush just as much as they praised him. Just depended on the policy.

One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019). Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/medicare-fraudsters-rake-in-billions/

Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, who heads the Justice Department's criminal division, told the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on crime and drugs in May that 3 percent to 10 percent of the $800 billion spent on Medicare and Medicaid each year "is lost to waste, fraud and abuse."

And Obamacare will be free from such fraud, waste, and abuse?

And the plan expects to make $150 billion in fines from people breaking the law.

Face it... this bill sucks.

+1 for repeating "obamacare."

 

[yuppiejr]

Given the number of "free to try" options that could have a profound impact on health care cost and availability why are we even debating this shitty bill? Aren't we throwing people in jail right now for perpetuating exactly the same sort of Ponzy scheme in the private sector?

-Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines..
-Eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for coverage
-Make all healthcare related expenses tax-free for individuals
-Implement meaningful tort law reform to eliminate both excessive insurance premiums for doctors/providers AND reduce the number of "defensive" procedures and tests performed simply out of fear of being sued later.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I think I still oppose it, thanks.

It's not about health care so much as it is about the federal government trying to establish more control over it's people.
And in order to cut costs they have to cut services. I like how so many people bitch that the insurance and care provider companies have so much red tape and added costs to services, but they expect the government to be better??? Seriously, get real. The government will spend $20,000 on a hammer. They don't give to squirts of piss about how much money they spend because they can just tax us more or make more money. The idiots in charge today don't understand the simple concepts of economics in that you can't make more money or spend more than you earn. And you want those idiots dictating your health care?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Given the number of "free to try" options that could have a profound impact on health care cost and availability why are we even debating this shitty bill? Aren't we throwing people in jail right now for perpetuating exactly the same sort of Ponzy scheme in the private sector?

-Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines..
-Eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for coverage
-Make all healthcare related expenses tax-free for individuals
-Implement meaningful tort law reform to eliminate both excessive insurance premiums for doctors/providers AND reduce the number of "defensive" procedures and tests performed simply out of fear of being sued later.

Except for the who "pre-existing" part of your list - I agree.

No company should be FORCED to take higher risk people, especially if they aren't able to charge a premium for them.

 

[shadow9d9]

It's not about health care so much as it is about the federal government trying to establish more control over it's people.
And in order to cut costs they have to cut services. I like how so many people bitch that the insurance and care provider companies have so much red tape and added costs to services, but they expect the government to be better??? Seriously, get real. The government will spend $20,000 on a hammer. They don't give to squirts of piss about how much money they spend because they can just tax us more or make more money. The idiots in charge today don't understand the simple concepts of economics in that you can't make more money or spend more than you earn. And you want those idiots dictating your health care?

The government in every other country does it great.

+1 for the government control rant. That doesn't make you sound crazy at all.

Profits dictate our health care now.

 

[shadow9d9]

Except for the who "pre-existing" part of your list - I agree.

No company should be FORCED to take higher risk people, especially if they aren't able to charge a premium for them.

Except, anything and everything can and will be exempted. There are no limitations or guidelines that must be followed. It is just a way to continue to remove care until only profit comes their way.

 

[shadow9d9]

Given the number of "free to try" options that could have a profound impact on health care cost and availability why are we even debating this shitty bill? Aren't we throwing people in jail right now for perpetuating exactly the same sort of Ponzy scheme in the private sector?

-Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines..
-Eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions for coverage
-Make all healthcare related expenses tax-free for individuals
-Implement meaningful tort law reform to eliminate both excessive insurance premiums for doctors/providers AND reduce the number of "defensive" procedures and tests performed simply out of fear of being sued later.

Both tort reform and insurance across state lines has been debunked.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/November/06/health-insurance-across-state-lines.aspx
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/across_state_lines_explained
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mandates16-2009nov16,0,2437457.story
http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs
http://www.maacenter.org/blog/the-truth-about-health-care-and-tort-reform-part-iii.html