Health Insurance Companies making Record Profit

[glenn1]

Why couldn't we have a public insurance option again?

Because those of us who are taxpayers don't feel like paying for not only our own healthcare, but also for "free" healthcare for those who aren't taxpayers.

And for the taxpayers that do want to, there are charities out there who do that type of work.

 

[shangshang]

Americans are screw. Doesn't matter if our president is left of right. Americans are screw and going forward it'll get worse. If you folks haven't realized this already, you need to save your money so that you can take care of yourself.

BTW, while Americans love to criticize their government and public institutions for their monetary inefficiencies (which is true), Americans themselves don't seem to know how to save money either. Look at all the debts Americans are face with.

Hmmm it's a case of pot calling kettle black, no?

Conclusion: American people and American government are reflections of each other. Get it?

 

[Engineer]

Because those of us who are taxpayers don't feel like paying for not only our own healthcare, but also for "free" healthcare for those who aren't taxpayers.

We already do..and then some..you just don't realize it.

 

[Carmen813]

Because those of us who are taxpayers don't feel like paying for not only our own healthcare, but also for "free" healthcare for those who aren't taxpayers.

And for the taxpayers that do want to, there are charities out there who do that type of work.

Sigh. You could at least learn what the public option is before bashing it. Then again, I don't blame you for not knowing, as the amount of B.S. said about it is quite outstanding. It's not "free" healthcare, for anyone, and it wasn't taxpayer subsidized. It was an idea that was destroyed by lies and misinformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option

 

[Schadenfroh]

We just need the political will to change our federal Constitution to allow socialized medicine.

Constitutional amendments to allow federal legislation of powers left to the states is the proper method rather than just using the "Interstate Commerce," "Common Defense" or "General Welfare" clauses to justify / bypass the constitution to do whatever you feel like (like The War on Drugs).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Two part question. What is the cost of US healthcare and what percentage of that is insurance company profit?

 

[soundforbjt]

^^^ Here's question for you.
What contributes the most to the high cost of healthcare? Hint: I's not insurance costs.

 

[dmcowen674]

Two part question. What is the cost of US healthcare and what percentage of that is insurance company profit?

What does it matter, you have people in here claiming they make no profit just like the Oil Companies yet they both continue to make record profits.

So who is lying?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What does it matter, you have people in here claiming they make no profit just like the Oil Companies yet they both continue to make record profits.

So who is lying?

I asked a question beyond your comprehension, which considering it's straightforward is pretty sad. When numbers are this difficult to process in context, it's usually indicative of severe brain trauma or a tumor. My condolences.

 

[charrison]

Two part question. What is the cost of US healthcare and what percentage of that is insurance company profit?

Make it 3 part.

How do you expect to limit insurance profit when you want to involve them in every medical transaction, no matter how affordable the transaction is?

 

[dmcowen674]

I asked a question beyond your comprehension, which considering it's straightforward is pretty sad. When numbers are this difficult to process in context, it's usually indicative of severe brain trauma or a tumor. My condolences.

Don't see you posting any numbers. You must be totally brain dead.

 

[Throckmorton]

Hayabusa's point is that the high medical costs aren't due to insurance company profits, because the margins are slim.

Looks like it was 3.4% in 2009 http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains

BUT... it's a huge unnecessary middleman, and all those employees count as middlemen. Real socialized insurance with a smaller staff would have much smaller overhead, and zero profit, like Medicare.

 

[charrison]

Hayabusa's point is that the high medical costs aren't due to insurance company profits, because the margins are slim.

Looks like it was 3.4% in 2009 http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains

BUT... it's a huge unnecessary middleman, and all those employees count as middlemen. Real socialized insurance with a smaller staff would have much smaller overhead, and zero profit, like Medicare.

only problem is medicare has the same run away cost problem. Like current insurance plans, it needs to stop trying to cover stuff that is affordable.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Because those of us who are taxpayers don't feel like paying for not only our own healthcare, but also for "free" healthcare for those who aren't taxpayers.

Is it possible that many of those non-taxpayers are non-taxpayers because they cannot find work that pays enough to allow them to pay taxes? In other words, might they still make a valuable contribution to society by propping up the upper classes with their underpaid labor?

Have you considered that your view might be a little short-sighted? What would happen under a real capitalist health care system if for whatever reason you could no longer obtain insurance? Suppose that you were diagnosed with cancer and that private insurance company's death panel found a way to rescind your policy, leaving you "free" to purchase insurance on the open market for $25,000/month.

Or let's suppose that you lost your job for some reason through no fault of your own and were unable to find another position in your field, perhaps losing your career, preventing you from being able to purchase health insurance?

Any way you slice it, the evidence is clear--people in other nations are getting much more health insurance value than we are for their dollar and they are much more content.

 

[Throckmorton]

only problem is medicare has the same run away cost problem. Like current insurance plans, it needs to stop trying to cover stuff that is affordable.

What do you propose, death panels to ration treatment?

 

[charrison]

What do you propose, death panels to ration treatment?

I first propose we have people take care of themselves on everything that is affordable. Do we really need govt or insurance involved for every routine trip to the doc?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Two part question. What is the cost of US healthcare and what percentage of that is insurance company profit?

We're paying about 17% of our GDP. The problem isn't merely insurance company profit, but also the expenses of the insurance company. A huge percentage of the people involved in the health care industry have nothing to do with actually providing health care--insurance executives, insurance company employees, medical billing specialists, company benefits plan managers, health insurance brokers, etc.

In contrast, other nations are spending far less as a percentage of GDP (and in absolute dollars) but have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, a more contented populace that isn't horrified by the prospect of job loss, and businesses and economies that aren't burdened by health care concerns.

If you haven't seen it, you should watch the documentary, Sick Around the World. This article is also good reading: Health Care Costs and Reform

While other nations are advancing, our nation is becoming a third world throwback.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

What do you propose, death panels to ration treatment?

More preventative care and more primary physicians
Less litigation, and less fear of litigation.

There are a few more, but these two, especially the first one, would take care of a lot of problems.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hayabusa's point is that the high medical costs aren't due to insurance company profits, because the margins are slim.

Looks like it was 3.4% in 2009 http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains

BUT... it's a huge unnecessary middleman, and all those employees count as middlemen. Real socialized insurance with a smaller staff would have much smaller overhead, and zero profit, like Medicare.

That's the theory. In practice? You can only have a person doing so many things. I think you'll find there's not going to be much of a change. The difference won't be substantial. Whether one wants government control is a separate issue from significant savings as a fraction of the whole. Have whatever view you wish, but have an understanding of how things are vs what you want.

Savings can be realized by other means but never from bean counting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One other thing. In determine true costs the price of putting people on unemployment and assistance needs to be considered.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We're paying about 17% of our GDP. The problem isn't merely insurance company profit, but also the expenses of the insurance company. A huge percentage of the people involved in the health care industry have nothing to do with actually providing health care--insurance executives, insurance company employees, medical billing specialists, company benefits plan managers, health insurance brokers, etc.

In contrast, other nations are spending far less as a percentage of GDP (and in absolute dollars) but have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, a more contented populace that isn't horrified by the prospect of job loss, and businesses and economies that aren't burdened by health care concerns.

If you haven't seen it, you should watch the documentary, Sick Around the World. This article is also good reading: Health Care Costs and Reform

While other nations are advancing, our nation is becoming a third world throwback.

Medical care is inherently more expensive in the US than most western nations. Looking at a nation with a higher population density means better utilization. That's a given. Also look at the rate of increase of costs. We're not at the top.

In any system there are administrative costs not directly associated with production. It doesn't go away. Government will have to create what will be the most expensive bureaucracies from scratch. The cost of implementation will be tremendous, resulting in a far more substantial percentage going to overhead. You do not take control of the most complicated and expensive thing on earth for nothing nor overnight. A decade or more of snafus, cost overruns and becoming competent is probably optimistic as is a lifetime to break even. I don't think most understand how big a beast their trying to swallow is.

 

[Throckmorton]

More preventative care and more primary physicians
Less litigation, and less fear of litigation.

There are a few more, but these two, especially the first one, would take care of a lot of problems.

Preventive care increases costs because people live longer. What we need is to remove taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, and get rid of the safety requirements for cars etc, so people die quicker.

 

[Jhhnn]

Medical care is inherently more expensive in the US than most western nations. Looking at a nation with a higher population density means better utilization. That's a given. Also look at the rate of increase of costs. We're not at the top.

In any system there are administrative costs not directly associated with production. It doesn't go away. Government will have to create what will be the most expensive bureaucracies from scratch. The cost of implementation will be tremendous, resulting in a far more substantial percentage going to overhead. You do not take control of the most complicated and expensive thing on earth for nothing nor overnight. A decade or more of snafus, cost overruns and becoming competent is probably optimistic as is a lifetime to break even. I don't think most understand how big a beast their trying to swallow is.

I think you're just making excuses and engaging in nay-saying.

Why does population density have anything to do with it? People in rural areas just travel further for care, and it's on their dime, anyway.

I'll agree that transitional costs would be large, but that doesn't equate to higher overhead, at all. Investment vs operating expense.

One of the advantages to a govt option would be to create a transitional path, a way to move towards a universal coverage hybrid system, mostly single payer, like the French employ at much, much lower cost than our own.

Socialized healthcare is inevitable. We already have it in many respects, we just allow too many middlemen to take a rake-off in implementation, and often overpay providers, as well.

 

[Abwx]

Medical care is inherently more expensive in the US than most western nations. Looking at a nation with a higher population density means better utilization. That's a given. Also look at the rate of increase of costs. We're not at the top.

In any system there are administrative costs not directly associated with production. It doesn't go away. Government will have to create what will be the most expensive bureaucracies from scratch. The cost of implementation will be tremendous, resulting in a far more substantial percentage going to overhead. You do not take control of the most complicated and expensive thing on earth for nothing nor overnight. A decade or more of snafus, cost overruns and becoming competent is probably optimistic as is a lifetime to break even. I don't think most understand how big a beast their trying to swallow is.

US system is by far the least efficient in devellopped countries..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons

Take account that in others countries, everyone is covered...

 

[dmcowen674]

US system is by far the least efficient in developed countries..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons

Take account that in others countries, everyone is covered...

That's the point and design, the U.S. is no longer a "developed country"