It finally reaches the mainstream

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Genx87
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.

That not completely accurate. The fact is, a healthy chunk of the costs that are being shifted around shouldn't be paid for by anyone but the provider.

Why for example, should any third party payers finance a new new wing at a local hospital with a big fountain in the lobby and VIP suites just because the hospital thinks that's what it needs to "compete" with others in the area. The debt incurred in that construction becomes a cost to be covered but why is it the insurers' role to cover it?

Why should any insurance company --Medicare or private insurer -- amortize imaging equipment purchases by doctors through payment for extra tests?

Aetna goes around a state and separately negotiates charges with each provider. The result is that a procedure that costs $1500 in one place may cost ten times that at another ... because the second's "costs" are higher. In Maryland though, there is a uniform schedule for most hospital procedures and guess what? Hospitals don't compete on fancy amenities and insurance companies don't compete on price; they both compete on quality of service.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Are you saying with a govt run single payer system we wouldnt perform similar functions? Really?

25% of the average physician's revenue is spent on insurance billing -- coding, re-coding, disputing, appealing, etc. The average practice has at least 1 FTE devoted to it and physicans spend hours on disputes. Hospitals have huge billing departments -- all devoted to dealing with insurance companies and dunning sick people who don't have money to pay them.

NONE of that exists in countries with Universal Healthcare. Everyone has the same national coverage -- there's no manipulation to get something covered. French and German physicans are all private and yet, they don't have billing clerks -- everything is automatically charged to the right sickness fund at the time of service and the companies have to pay within specified time periods. Charges are negotiated with providers nationally (similar to the Maryland hospital schedules) and the funds pay that.
In France, where supplementary plans pick up extras not included in the national plan, those charges are automatically sent to the supplementary carrier...and again, they are paid within statutory periods.

Single payer plan like Japan and Canada also pay according to set schedules.

 

[boomerang]

Everyone should go to the 60 minutes site and watch the segment they aired on Medicare and Medicaid fraud tonight.

 

[Jhhnn]

From blackangst1-

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

I apologize for that. OTOH, you haven't actually offered anything other than naysaying in this particular thread. I'll agree that huge executive salaries aren't the whole issue in terms of the total price of healthcare. OTOH, given that such salaries reflect profits, it seems to me that insurance companies have little incentive to actually reduce costs on the backside, the hospitals, doctors and so forth they pay. It's like investment bankers- if they reduce costs, they'll reduce cashflow and therefore profits. They've taken the other approach entirely by increasing their own rates and denying coverage to what they'd define as high maintenance people...

What we're seeing is the last gasp of a dying enterprise, the last chance to get as much as they can as fast as they can before the inevitable, which is the kind of care and financing Athena offers a little further down the page.

From GeezerMan-

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.

Think of SS vs the fees charged by fund managers of all stripes... total overhead is ~2% of cashflow for SS... last time I checked, anyway.

Do you actually regard our own govt as anymore inept than the French govt? If you do, if that's true, then it's a very poor reflection on the people of this country, that's for sure... because we elected 'em.

 

[LumbergTech]

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.

As if your ideology is any more fool proof

wake the fuck up

its fine to argue and say you want to do things differently, but you are simply delusional in how you oversimplify things so that if we just did what you said everything would be fucking wonderful

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From blackangst1-

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

I apologize for that. OTOH, you haven't actually offered anything other than naysaying in this particular thread. I'll agree that huge executive salaries aren't the whole issue in terms of the total price of healthcare. OTOH, given that such salaries reflect profits, it seems to me that insurance companies have little incentive to actually reduce costs on the backside, the hospitals, doctors and so forth they pay. It's like investment bankers- if they reduce costs, they'll reduce cashflow and therefore profits. They've taken the other approach entirely by increasing their own rates and denying coverage to what they'd define as high maintenance people...

What we're seeing is the last gasp of a dying enterprise, the last chance to get as much as they can as fast as they can before the inevitable, which is the kind of care and financing Athena offers a little further down the page.

From GeezerMan-

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.

Think of SS vs the fees charged by fund managers of all stripes... total overhead is ~2% of cashflow for SS... last time I checked, anyway.

Do you actually regard our own govt as anymore inept than the French govt? If you do, if that's true, then it's a very poor reflection on the people of this country, that's for sure... because we elected 'em.

My position is the same as Ive echoed in other threads, and is two fold. First, the biggest problem IMHO about our current model is 1. the PRICE of medicine in general, and 2. the COST of administering it. Now, jumping to my second point, I blame the companies involved. I dont have a problem with insurance profits of <10%. I suspect administration is a huge money pit, and thats due to inefficiency. My first point irks me. My grandmother is (in part) receiving benefits from Medicaid. Now, her pain meds are billed at $135/mo; however, were I to buy them sans insurance they would be about $45. We've all heard the stories of $10,000 toilet seats and such, and thats the problem. Now, my personal problem with this is this: Athena mentioned Japan. Their gov't dictates not what they will pay, but rather what can be charged. I have a big problem with that, and TBH I dont know what the answer is. People say a gov't sponsored single payer system will lower costs....BULLSHIT! They will just continue to overpay what they are billed, as they do with Medicaid.

My problem with current legislation is it doesnt address in a very real and tangable way these issues. If they did, I'd be all for them. Do I think we as a country should have something to cover those who need it? Absolutely. Do I think the current proposal will do it in a fiscally responsible way? Fuck no. It will simply throw a couple dozen million people into an already overpriced, overburdened system. And I havent even touched on quality of care lowering under this model. Thats another post.

 

[shadow9d9]

"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

Yeah, struggling poor old insurance companies.. making more while covering less.. dropping and excluding more than ever.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: waggy
this is not new. its been said many many times that the profit margin is low. wich always suprised me that peopl esay how they are making silly profits. %6 is insane? wtf.


but its another way for the goverment ot control the people.IF you think they are doing this for anything other then power or greed you are nuts. its not for the people and the goverment hasn't been for the last decade at least.

Meanwhile every other third world country pays half and everyone gets covered for everything. Government conspiracies!!! FEAR!!!!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: 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.

Umm obesity rates are just as high in Britain and many other countries.. get a clue.

 

[shadow9d9]

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.


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

Why? We didn't pay for 2 endless occupations and slaughters of other countries... so it shouldn't be a problem actually giving something to our own people for once.

 

[shadow9d9]

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.

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?

Umm, we ration care every day with insurances pocketing the difference in the US.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: 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....

"Dodge"... notice how he responded to nothing there?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

Marching for an American system? Not to my knowledge but they sure piss and moan about their own.

Here is an example of the rationing I am talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02.../europe/21britain.html

There are a million stories like this out of Britain. Another one I distinctly remember was a complete lack of Dentists for entire areas. People were doing their own dental work.

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.

I really dont believe it. Half of our medical costs in this country go to people who are above the age of 65. A population that represents about 20% of our population. You really cant prevent old age can you? End of life care costs is part of our problem. Probably the biggest cost in this entire reform.

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.

Because

1. We wont deport illegals. The very party who is pushing health reform welcomes illegals with open arms.
2. We simply wont take European level care in the States. We have been spoiled beyond belief.
3. We as a nation will continue even in a public system to hide the costs from ourselves for anything non catastrophic. The end result is higher demand.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

British are below most of Europe and way below us on many forms of cancer survival. Right now one of the biggest debates initiatives over there is to try to get their cancer survival rate inline with the rest of Europe.

We have a public\private health care system where have you been? 50% of our health care is publicly funded. Singapore has a more free less intrusive system than we have here where people pay for many of their routine procedures out of a govt mandated HSA backed by some form of catastrophic insurance.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Genx87
Are you saying with a govt run single payer system we wouldnt perform similar functions? Really?

25% of the average physician's revenue is spent on insurance billing -- coding, re-coding, disputing, appealing, etc. The average practice has at least 1 FTE devoted to it and physicans spend hours on disputes. Hospitals have huge billing departments -- all devoted to dealing with insurance companies and dunning sick people who don't have money to pay them.

NONE of that exists in countries with Universal Healthcare. Everyone has the same national coverage -- there's no manipulation to get something covered. French and German physicans are all private and yet, they don't have billing clerks -- everything is automatically charged to the right sickness fund at the time of service and the companies have to pay within specified time periods. Charges are negotiated with providers nationally (similar to the Maryland hospital schedules) and the funds pay that.
In France, where supplementary plans pick up extras not included in the national plan, those charges are automatically sent to the supplementary carrier...and again, they are paid within statutory periods.

Single payer plan like Japan and Canada also pay according to set schedules.

So you are making the claim we will have no oversight on billing in a public system? I highly doubt that. Unless you dont expect rampant fraud to take place. A public system will require the same checks and balances unless you want people raping the system.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Genx87
1. We wont deport illegals. The very party who is pushing health reform welcomes illegals with open arms.

IMHO, it was a mistake for Congress to start legislation about healthcare before immigration -- not because the cost of treatment for illegals is a major component of our problems but because there are so many people who would deprive citizens of adequate coverage out of fear that someone illegal might benefit.

I say this as someone who believes that our current immigration policy is misguided -- and has been for over 40 years. The priority of immigration policy should be what is good for the country, not individual wishes. Most legislators, Democratic and Republican, are clueless when it comes to the underlying sources of our immigration problems. As with so many other things, they cherry pick the research that support their preconceptions rather than actually listening to labor economists who have spent their entire careers studying the issues.

2. We simply wont take European level care in the States. We have been spoiled beyond belief.

As someone who worked for a long period of time in Europe, I can say unequivocably that the care is every bit as good -- or better -- than care here. Before I went to Europe, I was employed by Fortune 100 companies and had the best private insurance available. There was no dimunition of quality when I lived in the UK, France, or Austria. International comparisons are consistent with my own experience.

One problem we have here is that too many people conflate quality with overtreatment and fancy trappings. Hospitals in the US don't compete on outcomes, they compete on lush interiors, and expensive equipment. Most medium sized towns do not need multiple centers for the same specialties and yet hospitals replicate them in the name of competition. The result is more expensive care for everyone in the area.

3. We as a nation will continue even in a public system to hide the costs from ourselves for anything non catastrophic. The end result is higher demand.

That is a problem that can, and should, be addressed without depriving anyone of timely treatment -- make everyone pay up front and reimburse quickly.

So you are making the claim we will have no oversight on billing in a public system? I highly doubt that. Unless you dont expect rampant fraud to take place. A public system will require the same checks and balances unless you want people raping the system.

No I am not. I decided not to talk about fraud because my post it was already too long.

The resources spent on compliance and fraud investigation would not go away; indeed they would increase. We are now spending much more on billing + fraud control though than we would need to spend on compliance in a different system. The current system is fraught with opportunities to game the system. Organizing around a different financing model would reduce the opportunities.

 

[StageLeft]

I am not really impressed that the argument against their profits is that they make less than Yahoo.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Now, my personal problem with this is this: Athena mentioned Japan. Their gov't dictates not what they will pay, but rather what can be charged. I have a big problem with that, and TBH I dont know what the answer is.

FACT: Health care is not a commodity that is governed by supply and demand. Prices in healthcare are driven by the supply side. When a hospital adds a new wing in what is a nearly saturated market, the average cost for a hospital stay rises in the area. When a new opthomologist moves into a community, minor optical issues become the object of "medically necessary" operations.

Consumers are not in a position to assess and influence the cost rises; they respond to whatever an individual provider recommends. Three years after the new hospital wing opens and the opthamologist moves in though, data will show that the areas costs have mysteriously risen with no significant difference in outcomes when compared to the next country over -- with an old hospital and fewer opthomologists.

In the US, Maryland uses a standard schedule for hospital procedures -- and the result is that both hospitals and insurers compete on quality rather than price. Every successful national health care program uses regionally negotiated cost setting. It doesn't matter what financing model is used -- single-payer, all-payer, or individual private insurance -- all of them regulate the charges.

People say a gov't sponsored single payer system will lower costs....BULLSHIT! They will just continue to overpay what they are billed, as they do with Medicaid.

Only if a new system is required to emulate the broken supply-driven model we have in place.

Hospital insurance in this country was created by hospitals to encourage people to use their services. It was sold to healthy people with the idea that they wouldn't use much services but the sustained payments would sustain hospital costs.

Health care reform should have the exact opposite objective: National health care policy should have the exact opposite objective: as a nation want to keep people out of the hospital and reduce the cost of care for sick people.

 

[squirrel dog]

I think alot of people who voted for Obama(not me)think Gov Health Ins. is 'free' health
Ins.I think alot of people have no intention of ever paying for health ins. It's not going to ever be free.

 

[Athena]

Duplicate

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: 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....

"Dodge"... notice how he responded to nothing there?

Nice try. Apparently you need to lrn2read. Last page, few posts up:

My position is the same as Ive echoed in other threads, and is two fold. First, the biggest problem IMHO about our current model is 1. the PRICE of medicine in general, and 2. the COST of administering it. Now, jumping to my second point, I blame the companies involved. I dont have a problem with insurance profits of <10%. I suspect administration is a huge money pit, and thats due to inefficiency. My first point irks me. My grandmother is (in part) receiving benefits from Medicaid. Now, her pain meds are billed at $135/mo; however, were I to buy them sans insurance they would be about $45. We've all heard the stories of $10,000 toilet seats and such, and thats the problem. Now, my personal problem with this is this: Athena mentioned Japan. Their gov't dictates not what they will pay, but rather what can be charged. I have a big problem with that, and TBH I dont know what the answer is. People say a gov't sponsored single payer system will lower costs....BULLSHIT! They will just continue to overpay what they are billed, as they do with Medicaid.

My problem with current legislation is it doesnt address in a very real and tangable way these issues. If they did, I'd be all for them. Do I think we as a country should have something to cover those who need it? Absolutely. Do I think the current proposal will do it in a fiscally responsible way? Fuck no. It will simply throw a couple dozen million people into an already overpriced, overburdened system. And I havent even touched on quality of care lowering under this model. Thats another post.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Now, my personal problem with this is this: Athena mentioned Japan. Their gov't dictates not what they will pay, but rather what can be charged. I have a big problem with that, and TBH I dont know what the answer is.

FACT: Health care is not a commodity that is governed by supply and demand. Prices in healthcare are driven by the supply side. When a hospital adds a new wing in what is a nearly saturated market, the average cost for a hospital stay rises in the area. When a new opthomologist moves into a community, minor optical issues become the object of "medically necessary" operations.

Consumers are not in a position to assess and influence the cost rises; they respond to whatever an individual provider recommends. Three years after the new hospital wing opens and the opthamologist moves in though, data will show that the areas costs have mysteriously risen with no significant difference in outcomes when compared to the next country over -- with an old hospital and fewer opthomologists.

In the US, Maryland uses a standard schedule for hospital procedures -- and the result is that both hospitals and insurers compete on quality rather than price. Every successful national health care program uses regionally negotiated cost setting. It doesn't matter what financing model is used -- single-payer, all-payer, or individual private insurance -- all of them regulate the charges.

People say a gov't sponsored single payer system will lower costs....BULLSHIT! They will just continue to overpay what they are billed, as they do with Medicaid.

Only if a new system is required to emulate the broken supply-driven model we have in place.

Hospital insurance in this country was created by hospitals to encourage people to use their services. It was sold to healthy people with the idea that they wouldn't use much services but the sustained payments would sustain hospital costs.

Health care reform should have the exact opposite objective: National health care policy should have the exact opposite objective: as a nation want to keep people out of the hospital and reduce the cost of care for sick people.

For the most part I agree with you; however, my apprehension, as Ive stated many times, lies in that current legislation does nothing to address the bolded.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"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

Yeah, struggling poor old insurance companies.. making more while covering less.. dropping and excluding more than ever.

0.374%

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
I think alot of people who voted for Obama(not me)think Gov Health Ins. is 'free' health
Ins.I think alot of people have no intention of ever paying for health ins. It's not going to ever be free.

I disagree. I think most people understand we will be not addressing lowering costs associated with care, but rather taking from those who have, and giving it to those who dont, and using the same broken cost/price model we currently have. Think Robin Hood.

 

[squirrel dog]

In Louisiana we have the Charity hospital system.If you do not have health ins. the state will treat you for free.I had to take my son there when he dropped out of college,as my insurer dropped him as well.The Dr.s/workers there are as good if not better tham at Oshner(my hospital/insurer) The facility although old,was very clean.The patients represented a broad section of the demographic mix that is Louisiana.This system has worked in Louisiana for many years.