It finally reaches the mainstream

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, the health insurance industry is only marginally profitable, forced to raise rates and create exclusions in order to survive? That fewer and fewer people are covered or can afford it? That the whole enterprise model is headed the way of the dodo bird?

Why didn't you say so?

Healthcare is obviously a vital service. When other vital services were threatened by non-profitability, govt had to step in, take over. Just the way it is. What's different about healthcare? Why should we subsidize failing profiteers for their last big grab at the goodie bag?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

If we factor in the value of the salaries and perks that these companies' executives earn and count it as part of the profit, what would the picture look like?

The math has been shown a thousand times. Once again, Health Insurance company profits AND executive salaries, combined, only accounted for roughly 0.374% of the 2008 healthcare expenditures in the U.S.

Repeat that number to yourselves until you finally realize that the real problems with our system lie elsewhere. Those who harp on the salaries and profits of HI companies are fucking stupid, and they're actually hurting their cause. Period.

I have yet to see any of the proposals attack the real cost issues within our healthcare system... not one!

EDIT: This rant was not directed at you Whippersnapper, but your question provided me with the platform I needed to repeat these facts.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is my take on this situation.

The way we do health insurance in this country is more like a privately run entitlement program. So I think there is some merit to the complaints about the companies skimming off the top. If the insurance companies actually were catastrophic in nature the argument and the system imo would be radically different that it is today.

That said anybody dumb enough to believe erasing those 12-15 billion dollars in profit from a nearly 2 trillion health care market is going to solve our problems has issues of their own. Probably need to have an iq test and determine if they are legally retarded.

Above all even if we get rid of profit health insurance it wont stop the rising costs of health care. We have a demand issue with no mechanism to curb it. It could be the govt performing the same service and costs wont go down.

yeap. anyone that thinks cost will go down and service will go up is fuckign nuts.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: waggyyeap. anyone that thinks cost will go down and service will go up is fuckign nuts.

Explain how other nations are able to do it? According to news reports, other nations have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, and spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care. Are those statistics just lies?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87That said anybody dumb enough to believe erasing those 12-15 billion dollars in profit from a nearly 2 trillion health care market is going to solve our problems has issues of their own. Probably need to have an iq test and determine if they are legally retarded.

Above all even if we get rid of profit health insurance it wont stop the rising costs of health care. We have a demand issue with no mechanism to curb it. It could be the govt performing the same service and costs wont go down.

I think the problem is the existence of the insurance companies themselves, all of the costs associated with insurance company overhead, and all of the costs associated with insurance benefits and medical billing. Businesses spend time and money worrying about this and money is spent on insurance agents and consultants. Doctors offices pay billing specialists. All of these people--insurance company employees, insurance agents, benefits plan consultants, benefits managers at businesses, medical billing specialists--have nothing to do with the actual act of providing health care; they are just middlemen and red tape expenses.

I like the British model combined with an outright expulsion of anyone who is in this country illegally. I do agree that there needs to be some sort of a deterrent to hypochondriacs. What do you propose as a solution to our health care problem? For a good time, see:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...ne/sickaroundtheworld/

(Click on "Watch the Full Program Online" in the upper right.)

Note, it's probably almost impossible to find more than a few capitalist ideologue yahoos in those countries who would want to scrap their system for the American system.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

If we factor in the value of the salaries and perks that these companies' executives earn and count it as part of the profit, what would the picture look like?

Regardless, this still doesn't explain why the U.S. spends nearly 17% of its GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health insurance while also having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies and businesses burdened by insurance concerns. In the meantime, other first world nations rightfully regard Americans as being retarded and spend a much smaller percentage of their GDP on health care while having 100% coverage, a more relaxed populace, zero medical bankruptcies, and businesses that aren't burdened by insurance concerns.

We are fat lazy bastards, most other people in the world actually exercise a bit while going about their normal day. We drive around the parking lot for 20 minutes to save 3 minutes of walking and eat fast food multiple times a week.

You wanna reduce our health care costs then move the parking lot to every Walmart 100 yards away from the entrance.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Genx87That said anybody dumb enough to believe erasing those 12-15 billion dollars in profit from a nearly 2 trillion health care market is going to solve our problems has issues of their own. Probably need to have an iq test and determine if they are legally retarded.

Above all even if we get rid of profit health insurance it wont stop the rising costs of health care. We have a demand issue with no mechanism to curb it. It could be the govt performing the same service and costs wont go down.

I think the problem is the existence of the insurance companies themselves, all of the costs associated with insurance company overhead, and all of the costs associated with insurance benefits and medical billing. Businesses spend time and money worrying about this and money is spent on insurance agents and consultants. Doctors offices pay billing specialists. All of these people--insurance company employees, insurance agents, benefits plan consultants, benefits managers at businesses, medical billing specialists--have nothing to do with the actual act of providing health care; they are just middlemen and red tape expenses.

I like the British model combined with an outright expulsion of anyone who is in this country illegally. I do agree that there needs to be some sort of a deterrent to hypochondriacs. What do you propose as a solution to our health care problem? For a good time, see:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...ne/sickaroundtheworld/

(Click on "Watch the Full Program Online" in the upper right.)

Note, it's probably almost impossible to find more than a few capitalist ideologue yahoos in those countries who would want to scrap their system for the American system.

A lot of those costs exist in our public programs as well. The difference is the govt tells the providers to eat the cost. Those costs still exist, they are passed onto private insurance and people who dont have insurance.

The mere existence of private insurance isnt the problem. How we are are setup is the problem. We have insurance in other areas such as homes, car, and life. Is there a crisis in those industries? No, why? Because they are catastrophic in nature.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: waggyyeap. anyone that thinks cost will go down and service will go up is fuckign nuts.

Explain how other nations are able to do it? According to news reports, other nations have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, and spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care. Are those statistics just lies?

and they have extreamly high tax rates. OBAMA has said they are NOT going to raise taxes.


so something has to give. Its either going to be service or cost. if cost go up so does taxes.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: waggyyeap. anyone that thinks cost will go down and service will go up is fuckign nuts.

Explain how other nations are able to do it? According to news reports, other nations have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, and spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care. Are those statistics just lies?

and they have extreamly high tax rates. OBAMA has said they are NOT going to raise taxes.

They have high tax rates and people don't pay as much out of pocket for health care with the result being a smaller percentage of GDP spent on health care. What difference does it make if the money you spend on health care comes in the form of premiums or taxes? The end result is that the amount in taxes people in other nations pay ends up being less than what we here in the U.S. pay in taxes and premiums--unless you want to say that the percentage-of-GDP statistics have been falsified.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87A lot of those costs exist in our public programs as well. The difference is the govt tells the providers to eat the cost. Those costs still exist, they are passed onto private insurance and people who dont have insurance.

The British seem to be able to do it with a lower percentage of GDP. Somehow they've been able to cut the amount of government red tape.

The mere existence of private insurance isnt the problem. How we are are setup is the problem. We have insurance in other areas such as homes, car, and life. Is there a crisis in those industries? No, why? Because they are catastrophic in nature.

The loss of a car or having to rebuild a family room after a tree fell on it isn't as expensive as cancer treatment. Also, the need for health insurance is much greater--you won't die from not having auto, home, or life insurance. If the need for those things were as grave as the need for health insurance, there very well might be a problem in those areas.

 

[JSt0rm]

its not just executive pay. The entire system needs people on both ends to bill fight and figure out wtf is going on. All that costs a hell of a lot more then a single payer would.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
It has nothing at all to do with executive pay. The entire system needs people on both ends to bill fight and figure out wtf is going on.

fixed.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Genx87A lot of those costs exist in our public programs as well. The difference is the govt tells the providers to eat the cost. Those costs still exist, they are passed onto private insurance and people who dont have insurance.

The British seem to be able to do it with a lower percentage of GDP. Somehow they've been able to cut the amount of government red tape.

The British also ration their care or sometimes dont even provide it. Something that would never fly in the United States.

The mere existence of private insurance isnt the problem. How we are are setup is the problem. We have insurance in other areas such as homes, car, and life. Is there a crisis in those industries? No, why? Because they are catastrophic in nature.

The loss of a car or having to rebuild a family room after a tree fell on it isn't as expensive as cancer treatment. Also, the need for health insurance is much greater--you won't die from not having auto, home, or life insurance. If the need for those things were as grave as the need for health insurance, there very well might be a problem in those areas.

Depends on what is being done. A liability claim can easily reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But here is the thing, car insurance, house insurance, and life insurance are catastrophic in nature. Your car insurance doesnt pay for routine maintenance. And neither does your home owners pay for remodeling. But your health insurance pays for everything medically done to you. And all you see is typically a copay.

Why dont we have food insurance? What is more important? The ability to eat or see a doctor? What would happen to food prices if all we had at the grocery store was a 15 dollar copay?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
its not just executive pay. The entire system needs people on both ends to bill fight and figure out wtf is going on. All that costs a hell of a lot more then a single payer would.

Are you saying with a govt run single payer system we wouldnt perform similar functions? Really?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
its not just executive pay. The entire system needs people on both ends to bill fight and figure out wtf is going on. All that costs a hell of a lot more then a single payer would.

Are you saying with a govt run single payer system we wouldnt perform similar functions? Really?

He, like many on the left, have been brainwashed. Dont mind him. He's just regurgitating what he's been spoon fed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
its not just executive pay. The entire system needs people on both ends to bill fight and figure out wtf is going on. All that costs a hell of a lot more then a single payer would.

Are you saying with a govt run single payer system we wouldnt perform similar functions? Really?

He, like many on the left, have been brainwashed. Dont mind him. He's just regurgitating what he's been spoon fed.

I suspect that you're the one regurgitating what's been spoonfed, blackangst.

Other countries, particularly France, have better results at lower cost, expressed in terms of % of GDP and cost per person. At least the WHO seems to think so.

Google "french healthcare system" to get more stories like this-

http://baltimorechronicle.com/.../102209Ridgeway2.shtml

They have a hybrid system with govt and insurance components, but we don't hear too much about it... all we hear is a lot of misinformation and outright lies from supporters of non-reform of our own broken system...

It's not like we have to re-invent the wheel...

Notice the price differential for name brand drugs cited in the linked piece... it's not just about insurance, but about the whole non-system we use to distribute care...

Edit- typo

 

[classy]

Oh God now we have health insurer sympathizers. :roll:

Lets see 2.2% on several trillion dollars of gross revenue is a huge difference than 12% on a couple hundred million dollars in revenue. Not to mention health care costs continue to spiral out of control. There is no checks and balances in health care insurance.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: classy
Oh God now we have health insurer sympathizers. :roll:

Are you actually surprised?

These fucktards are desperate.

You know my saying: Desperate people do desperate things

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Genx87A lot of those costs exist in our public programs as well. The difference is the govt tells the providers to eat the cost. Those costs still exist, they are passed onto private insurance and people who dont have insurance.

The British seem to be able to do it with a lower percentage of GDP. Somehow they've been able to cut the amount of government red tape.

The British also ration their care or sometimes dont even provide it. Something that would never fly in the United States.

I'm not buying into the scare stories. Have the British people been marching in the street saying they would rather have the American system? It's not like our current system doesn't leave millions of people uninsured or under-insured with hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year.

The loss of a car or having to rebuild a family room after a tree fell on it isn't as expensive as cancer treatment. Also, the need for health insurance is much greater--you won't die from not having auto, home, or life insurance. If the need for those things were as grave as the need for health insurance, there very well might be a problem in those areas.

Depends on what is being done. A liability claim can easily reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But here is the thing, car insurance, house insurance, and life insurance are catastrophic in nature. Your car insurance doesnt pay for routine maintenance. And neither does your home owners pay for remodeling. But your health insurance pays for everything medically done to you. And all you see is typically a copay.

My understanding is that the idea is to reduce the barrier to people's obtaining routine health care in order to reduce the amount of catastrophic costs. Perhaps it's less expensive to have routine screenings for ailments that can be treated early or prevented then to have to deal with them later when they are worse.

Why dont we have food insurance? What is more important? The ability to eat or see a doctor? What would happen to food prices if all we had at the grocery store was a 15 dollar copay?

I get it. When the price is free to the consumers the demand skyrockets and if it's being subsidized then either taxes must increase or quality and available quantity must decrease. It's definitely something to keep in mind and we need to figure out a way to put up a deterrent against hypochondriacs. However, that knowledge doesn't really help us with the fundamental changes needed to overhaul our current, broken system.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why other nation's systems could not metaphysically function here if we deported the illegals or that the GDP expenditure percentages are fraudulent or misleading.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Genx87A lot of those costs exist in our public programs as well. The difference is the govt tells the providers to eat the cost. Those costs still exist, they are passed onto private insurance and people who dont have insurance.

The British seem to be able to do it with a lower percentage of GDP. Somehow they've been able to cut the amount of government red tape.

The British also ration their care or sometimes dont even provide it. Something that would never fly in the United States.

And yet, Britons are better off than us in every measure available in health care. Germany, which doesn't have a single-payer system, is also better off in every imaginable category. You can go to every single developed country in the world and this trend does not let up for an instance. It's interesting to note that when countries choose to reform their health systems, such as Sweden (Switzerland?) and Singapore, they did not even consider the American style system at all. They chose a combination of every other developed country's health care system. Our for-profit, employer mandate, insurance driven system is the very model of inefficiency and waste. It's driving companies bankrupt, it's driving American workers bankrupt and it's driving our government bankrupt. We need legitimate reform in the vein of Europe to actually bring our system up to par with the rest of the world.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
its not just executive pay. The entire system needs people on both ends to bill fight and figure out wtf is going on. All that costs a hell of a lot more then a single payer would.

Are you saying with a govt run single payer system we wouldnt perform similar functions? Really?

He, like many on the left, have been brainwashed. Dont mind him. He's just regurgitating what he's been spoon fed.

I suspect that you're the one regurgitating what's been spoonfed, blackangst.

Other countries, particularly France, have better results at lower cost, expressed in terms of % of GDP and cost per person. At least the WHO seems to think so.

Google "french healthcare system" to get more stories like this-

http://baltimorechronicle.com/.../102209Ridgeway2.shtml

They have a hybrid system with govt and insurance components, but we don't hear too much about it... all we hear is a lot of misinformation and outright lies from supporters of non-reform of our own broken system...

It's not like we have to re-invent the wheel...

Notice the price differential for name brand drugs cited in the linked piece... it's not just about insurance, but about the whole non-system we use to distribute care...

Edit- typo

And which lies exactly am I regurgitating? Dont misunderstand my sarcastic eye towards idiots for lack of want for health care reform....

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Zstream
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...check_health_insurance

About damn time!

I am more interested in what is included in the cost of sales, rather than what is left over.

I am more interested in what % of the collected premium actually goes towards paying for health care versus goes toward operational costs.

Do you apply that same scrutiny to government run services?

 

[GeezerMan]

I have observed some things while going to my various doctors without health insurance. I got a 50% discount last year with a hand surgeon for some minor surgery. I get a 30% discount with my main doctor, and discounted lab work. He ordered some blood lab tests from the independent lab across the hall, to be billed through him, and I paid him 135.00 for it. I also received a bill from the lab by mistake. They wanted to charge me 800.00 for the same invoice that I paid him 135.00 for. Got some wiggle room there for sure. He also employs a full time gal to handle nothing but insurance issues. Maybe they took pity on me when I show up in tattered shoes.

Do I think a govt run plan would do better? I'm sitting here trying to think of a efficient govt program that saves us money.Hmmmmm.

 

[thegimp03]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
I have observed some things while going to my various doctors without health insurance. I got a 50% discount last year with a hand surgeon for some minor surgery. I get a 30% discount with my main doctor, and discounted lab work. He ordered some blood lab tests from the independent lab across the hall, to be billed through him, and I paid him 135.00 for it. I also received a bill from the lab by mistake. They wanted to charge me 800.00 for the same invoice that I paid him 135.00 for. Got some wiggle room there for sure. He also employs a full time gal to handle nothing but insurance issues. Maybe they took pity on me when I show up in tattered shoes.

Do I think a govt run plan would do better? I'm sitting here trying to think of a efficient govt program that saves us money.Hmmmmm.

Chances are, any gov't run plan isn't going to be efficient because there are always going to be people taking advantage of the system. $10,000 toilet seats don't really point towards efficiency or meeting any sort of budget laid out for them.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: waggy
and they have extreamly high tax rates. OBAMA has said they are NOT going to raise taxes.


so something has to give. Its either going to be service or cost. if cost go up so does taxes.

I do not understand why it is always put that way -- we are already, as individuals and as a country, paying more than any tax supported system. We wouldn't have to pay anymore than we are now to have universal care quality treatment for all.

The media talks about single-payer but no one ever talks about "all-payer", which is what they have in France, Germany, and many other countries. In fact, some facets of care in Maryland are organized the same way. Healthcare there runs 15% -16% of payroll and that plus government contributions, finances care for everyone -- with no dimunition of quality or waiting.

Private insurance is not the problem. Inefficient hospital competion is not the problem. Nor is unhealthy individual lifestyle the problem. Our biggest problem as a nation is that we don't have any kind of rational national health financing plan. The proposals in Congress are not reform, they are just schemes to pour more money into something that really doesn't work. We don't need to add a separate, poorly conceived, insurance scheme for small businesses and individuals to add to the confusion of plans for seniors, for children, for pregnant women, for big business, for the unemployed, for the working poor, etc. Another insurance program is the absolute last thing we need.

One thing that all successful health care programs have in common is that they are built on one national financing scheme that covers every man, woman, and child. Some countries do it with a national health service like the UK and Spain. Some do it with a single payer system like Japan, or China, or Canada. Some, like France and Germany finance care through payroll deductions that are consolidated into large private,non-profit national funds that can be supplemented by additional programs. And some, like Switzerland and the Netherlands do it all through individual, private insurance.

The point is, no country runs a patch work of programs. And every single one of them has a highly regulated health care industry.

Taxes are not our problem -- we already spend more per capita and as a percentage of GDP than any country in the world. And 46¢ of every dollar spent is already coming out of taxes. Instead of talking about pouring more money into a dysfunctional financing model, we should be talking about implementing a new model -- which would be less expensive for everyone concerned.