Question for opponents of health reform

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87
Edit: This is my plan. I am not responding to the OP's 3 points below.

1. Public catastrophic option. 2-4K deductible depending on income level and age. If you want 15 dollar copays. Then pay for it via private insurance.
2. Have to address end of life care costs
3. Erase tax deduction for business paying for healthcare. Or grant individual tax deduction for cost of insurance. Level the playing field.

We arent addressing the costs in the system with the current reform. Only how to pay for the ever increasing costs.

We are adding real competition, which will reduce costs.

In what way? You think the costs are derived from the insurance companies or from the health provider?

A competitor with reasonable costs without the denial of care, cancelations, or other tricks to get people to leave will cause people to flock to it, leaving regular insurance companies with the option of reducing their massive profits bya actually covering people like they are supposed to now.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87
Edit: This is my plan. I am not responding to the OP's 3 points below.

1. Public catastrophic option. 2-4K deductible depending on income level and age. If you want 15 dollar copays. Then pay for it via private insurance.
2. Have to address end of life care costs
3. Erase tax deduction for business paying for healthcare. Or grant individual tax deduction for cost of insurance. Level the playing field.

We arent addressing the costs in the system with the current reform. Only how to pay for the ever increasing costs.

We are adding real competition, which will reduce costs.

In what way? You think the costs are derived from the insurance companies or from the health provider?

I love the retarded ass notion that offering a public plan will inject competition and reduce costs. The problem with medicine is a supply problem, not a economy of scale problem. There is a short supply of medicine, and by offering artificially low priced "public option" you are effectively increasing demand. This can only result higher prices.

What's going to happen is there will be two segments of medicine created. Whether it's a gov't agency or a coop a new org is created, they will have attract doctors that will accept their low paid insurance. This attracts the lowest common denominator doctors. So now you have public option doctors (probably poor performance), and private insurance doctors. At this point the public option will be over capacity because private insurance doctors will not accept PO patients.

Then the real fun begins. Politicians will claim that is discrimination and will pass a law that disallows doctors that accept insurance to deny PO patients. The private system will now be strained and all medicine becomes public/private hybrid.

The rich of course will keep their doctors because they can just pay cash.

Because of the lack of funds there will low PO payouts and more and more doctors will get out of medicine and future candidates for MDs will seriously reconsider. What ultimately will happen is long waits and rationing. Private insurers' profit margins will deteriorate because doctors will charge more for private to subsidize public. Then the ones on the private plans will realize it makes no sense and all will get dumped on public and eventually evolve to UHC.

Yet in reality, every other country does it for half the price with everyone covered.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: ElFenix

anyone can already buy insurance from any provider regardless of what their employer offers.

and are you advocating community rating?

The problem with your statement is that if I buy into Cigna for example, and my employer has Blue Cross Blue Shield, I have to pay the entire cost myself, not realistic.

it's obvious that's the problem you saw, but your solution wasn't anything that would fix the problem.

What do you mean when you refer to community rating?

study up on the history of prepaid medical and insurance. in community rating the insurance companies basically have to charge everyone the same rate, regardless of whether that person is young and healthy or old and sickly. that's how all medical insurance originally worked and, iirc, the blues still have to operate that way.

in experience rating people get charged premiums according to the actuarial tables. it's how practically all other insurance works. 16 year old males have higher premiums than 45 year old women, people with sports cars have higher premiums than those with minivans, etc.

My issue with how pooling is done is that in a company that I am in (50 people) if 3 of us have kids (we are a young company, median age in the low 30s) our premiums go up by 25% (which is what happened this year). The insurance company is trying to re-coup the money from US only, and that's wrong. Does that mean a different company that has 50 employees and had no kids born got a reduction? I seriously doubt it.

no, they kept their lower rate. you want to have a kid in the hospital and not pay for it?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87
Edit: This is my plan. I am not responding to the OP's 3 points below.

1. Public catastrophic option. 2-4K deductible depending on income level and age. If you want 15 dollar copays. Then pay for it via private insurance.
2. Have to address end of life care costs
3. Erase tax deduction for business paying for healthcare. Or grant individual tax deduction for cost of insurance. Level the playing field.

We arent addressing the costs in the system with the current reform. Only how to pay for the ever increasing costs.

We are adding real competition, which will reduce costs.

In what way? You think the costs are derived from the insurance companies or from the health provider?

I love the retarded ass notion that offering a public plan will inject competition and reduce costs. The problem with medicine is a supply problem, not a economy of scale problem. There is a short supply of medicine, and by offering artificially low priced "public option" you are effectively increasing demand. This can only result higher prices.

What's going to happen is there will be two segments of medicine created. Whether it's a gov't agency or a coop a new org is created, they will have attract doctors that will accept their low paid insurance. This attracts the lowest common denominator doctors. So now you have public option doctors (probably poor performance), and private insurance doctors. At this point the public option will be over capacity because private insurance doctors will not accept PO patients.

Then the real fun begins. Politicians will claim that is discrimination and will pass a law that disallows doctors that accept insurance to deny PO patients. The private system will now be strained and all medicine becomes public/private hybrid.

The rich of course will keep their doctors because they can just pay cash.

Because of the lack of funds there will low PO payouts and more and more doctors will get out of medicine and future candidates for MDs will seriously reconsider. What ultimately will happen is long waits and rationing. Private insurers' profit margins will deteriorate because doctors will charge more for private to subsidize public. Then the ones on the private plans will realize it makes no sense and all will get dumped on public and eventually evolve to UHC.

Yet in reality, every other country does it for half the price with everyone covered.

Keep bringing on that argument. Here's a better one. We spent 0.0000% of GDP on healthcare in caveman days, so healthcare should be free.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A competitor with reasonable costs without the denial of care, cancellations, or other tricks to get people to leave will cause people to flock to it, leaving regular insurance companies with the option of reducing their massive profits by actually covering people like they are supposed to now.

Again with the "massive profits" thing? How do 1% to 3% profit margins equate to being too "massive"??

When 99% of healthcare costs are s result of the rest of the healthcare system, why do you continue to focus blame on the insurance companies? Is it because Obama and Pelosi told you to?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A competitor with reasonable costs without the denial of care, cancellations, or other tricks to get people to leave will cause people to flock to it, leaving regular insurance companies with the option of reducing their massive profits by actually covering people like they are supposed to now.

Again with the "massive profits" thing? How do 1% to 3% profit margins equate to being too "massive"??

When 99% of healthcare costs are s result of the rest of the healthcare system, why do you continue to focus blame on the insurance companies? Is it because Obama and Pelosi told you to?

Because evil greedy corporations, and the haves are easy targets for the class evny warriors.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A competitor with reasonable costs without the denial of care, cancellations, or other tricks to get people to leave will cause people to flock to it, leaving regular insurance companies with the option of reducing their massive profits by actually covering people like they are supposed to now.

Again with the "massive profits" thing? How do 1% to 3% profit margins equate to being too "massive"??

When 99% of healthcare costs are s result of the rest of the healthcare system, why do you continue to focus blame on the insurance companies? Is it because Obama and Pelosi told you to?

Are you sure about that 99% figure there?

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87
Edit: This is my plan. I am not responding to the OP's 3 points below.

1. Public catastrophic option. 2-4K deductible depending on income level and age. If you want 15 dollar copays. Then pay for it via private insurance.
2. Have to address end of life care costs
3. Erase tax deduction for business paying for healthcare. Or grant individual tax deduction for cost of insurance. Level the playing field.

We arent addressing the costs in the system with the current reform. Only how to pay for the ever increasing costs.

We are adding real competition, which will reduce costs.

In what way? You think the costs are derived from the insurance companies or from the health provider?

I love the retarded ass notion that offering a public plan will inject competition and reduce costs. The problem with medicine is a supply problem, not a economy of scale problem. There is a short supply of medicine, and by offering artificially low priced "public option" you are effectively increasing demand. This can only result higher prices.

What's going to happen is there will be two segments of medicine created. Whether it's a gov't agency or a coop a new org is created, they will have attract doctors that will accept their low paid insurance. This attracts the lowest common denominator doctors. So now you have public option doctors (probably poor performance), and private insurance doctors. At this point the public option will be over capacity because private insurance doctors will not accept PO patients.

Then the real fun begins. Politicians will claim that is discrimination and will pass a law that disallows doctors that accept insurance to deny PO patients. The private system will now be strained and all medicine becomes public/private hybrid.

The rich of course will keep their doctors because they can just pay cash.

Because of the lack of funds there will low PO payouts and more and more doctors will get out of medicine and future candidates for MDs will seriously reconsider. What ultimately will happen is long waits and rationing. Private insurers' profit margins will deteriorate because doctors will charge more for private to subsidize public. Then the ones on the private plans will realize it makes no sense and all will get dumped on public and eventually evolve to UHC.

summed up perfectly

 

[sactoking]

I'd just like to point out that the whole point of this thread is wrong. The question "Question for opponents of health reform: What is your alternative?" implies that absence of an alternative mandates support of the current proposal. That is just not true. We have a system in place that functions, though the efficacy is up for debate. We have a BATNA- Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement. The BATNA is the current system.

Proponents of the proposed system want everyone to believe that the BATNA is the proposal. That is a fallacy. Absent agreement on a GOOD solution, the BATNA is and should be the current system.

In other words, lack of alternative proposals should and does not mandate that the one proposal on the books be accepted.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I see so many railing against the proposed health reform, but I havent yet seen a single concrete alternative policy proposal to address the problems in healthcare. I would like to see the following questions answered.

1. Do you consider it a problem that there are 50mil uninsured people in this country? What is your proposal for dealing with this in an orderly way? You must answer this question under the assumption that they will get cared for if they get sick, it's just a matter of who pays for it. Dont bother preaching personal responsibility, because that is not a solution, just a diversion.

2. Our health care spending consumes almost twice our gdp when compared to other countries. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

3. Healthcare spending and premiums are growing at a faster clip than inflation and wage growth. How do you propose slowing this down?

zI am not sold on any specific policy proposals on how to fix our healthcare system, but I am absolutely sure that SOMETHING has to be done, beq0cause the system is spiraling out of control. I might have good insurance now, but who knows what I will be able to afford after another 15-20 years of health care inflation. I am willing to get behind any plan that I believe will lower the out of control costs of healthcare, and if that means doing away with the middleman, ie insurance, then so be it. If that means I wait several months for non emergency procedures, then so be it. If that means specialists have to take a pay cut and sell one of their vacation homes, then so be it.

1) Are the uninsured a problem?

Sure it's a problem. It doesn't threaten our democracy.

2) Our health care spending consumes almost twice our gdp when compared to other countries. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Bad of course.

3) Healthcare spending and premiums are growing at a faster clip than inflation and wage growth. How do you propose slowing this down?

Really easy. The price system is broken. Open it up. Stop the tax breaks for employer-based plans. The closer patients are to payment, the better. They will not pay for BS.

I order my preference as follows:

1) Truly free market system (If we really want to help the uninsured out, just give them outright accounts they can use to purchase healthcare themselves.) I think if this were properly implemented, you'd have cheaper healthcare. Sure, some old people might not be able to afford a heart transplant, but they often don't get it in UHC countries either.

2) European-style UHC (not great, but cheaper than what we're doing now)

3) The f'd up system we have now that is a frankenstein of socialized and free market bodyparts. I think in practice we'll see more of this frankenstein system which is why I am generally opposed to Obama's plans.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: ccbadd
1. Your number of 50 mil is BS fodder, try 15 mil.
2. It is expensive.
3. Eliminate health insurance as we know it and replace it with HSA's. Let people add major medical insurance only. People can then go to the doctor of choice and negotiate a fair price. Institute tort reform and penalize "THE LAWYERS" for frivolous law suits.

I am with you on eliminating insurance. However, what do you do about people who for whatever reason dont have major medical insurance, and show up at a trauma center with no insurance, and no money? They will get treated regardless, as they should. Who pays?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: DesiPower
There is no cure for the current system. The new "under patent" drugs and medical procedures are wayyyy to expensive for anyone to afford, the only way to pay for them is to increase the premium of the insurance. This system eventually will fall apart under its own burden unless the insurance and pharmaceutical companies change course (which is very unlikely right now)

A govt run health care may also have to pay the same high cost for treatment. If the govt does not have funds available on time to reimburse the hospitals and docs then that will lead to a catastrophe. Currently govt is unable to pay for CFC on time. Bottom line, in the current form, the proposal will destroy the entire health industry which in one of the biggest foreign revenue generator or exporter.

Solutions - A plan Like medicare, the govt will 1st approve each drug and procedure and price which will be covered under the govt run health care. But then this new system will not be at par with regular health insurance and that's a problem... But IMO that the best soln.
Everyone will have paid medicare till they reach 65 and then they can buy more suppliment insurance if they feel like. Atleast everyone will have 90% of their a$$e$ covered. These health insurance companies can sell the "new supplement plan". Or instead of paying for the "new medicare" they can buy private insurance.

I like your idea. We need a major single payer that implements price controls on the industry. I think that is what the .gov is going for with the government run insurance plan. I guess using medicare instead makes sense since the administrative side is already in place. It would just need to be scaled up to handle the volume.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I see so many railing against the proposed health reform, but I havent yet seen a single concrete alternative policy proposal to address the problems in healthcare. I would like to see the following questions answered.

1. Do you consider it a problem that there are 50mil uninsured people in this country? What is your proposal for dealing with this in an orderly way? You must answer this question under the assumption that they will get cared for if they get sick, it's just a matter of who pays for it. Dont bother preaching personal responsibility, because that is not a solution, just a diversion.

2. Our health care spending consumes almost twice our gdp when compared to other countries. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

3. Healthcare spending and premiums are growing at a faster clip than inflation and wage growth. How do you propose slowing this down?

I am not sold on any specific policy proposals on how to fix our healthcare system, but I am absolutely sure that SOMETHING has to be done, because the system is spiraling out of control. I might have good insurance now, but who knows what I will be able to afford after another 15-20 years of health care inflation. I am willing to get behind any plan that I believe will lower the out of control costs of healthcare, and if that means doing away with the middleman, ie insurance, then so be it. If that means I wait several months for non emergency procedures, then so be it. If that means specialists have to take a pay cut and sell one of their vacation homes, then so be it.

1) WHY do they HAVE to be cared for? Thats the first fatal flaw in the argument.
Because we as a wealthy, moral society do not turn away sick people when they are in need. It's a shame I even have to answer that
2) I think this is a non issue. How much of that is needed care versus non emergency type care?
3) tort reform for one

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: mrwabam

1. Do you consider it a problem that there are 50mil uninsured people in this country? What is your proposal for dealing with this in an orderly way? You must answer this question under the assumption that they will get cared for if they get sick, it's just a matter of who pays for it. Dont bother preaching personal responsibility, because that is not a solution, just a diversion.

No, health care is not and should not be considered a birth right. Having to actually pay for insurance is a pretty darn good motivator to go out and get a job with health benefits. If you choose or are unable to do that, die, seriously die. Darwin would turn over in his grave if he saw the crazy state humans were going to.

2. Our health care spending consumes almost twice our gdp when compared to other countries. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

It is a bad thing. It should be cheaper, and I think some health reform would be good. ObamaCare (as it has been presented so far) is way too much and will do nothing to actually lower costs in the US.

3. Healthcare spending and premiums are growing at a faster clip than inflation and wage growth. How do you propose slowing this down?

Simple.... Have health insurance be like home/car/pretty much every other insurance available.

My home is insured, if there is an earthquake or other catastrophic event that wrecks knocks my house down I get money. If I get a heart attack, my health insurance would pay to fix me.

My insurance does not pay for upkeep of my house (painting the walls, putting in new bathroom, upgrading the sinks, replacing old pipes, etc...).... My health insurance shouldn't pay for my annual physicals/upkeep either.

If I treat my house like shit, I am liable if it falls apart. If i don't do my preventative maintenance and treat my body like shit, i should be liable and either let die, or have to pay out of pocket.

So if I am starting out in the workplace, straight out of college, and I am flat broke looking for a job and cant afford insurance at the time, I should just die if I get in a car accident? What about small children with broke ass parents? It's easy to say that behind a keyboard. I'd like to see you blocking the entrance to the ER to a penniless pregnant woman who was in a major accident. I bet you wouldnt be so tough then.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: irwincur
Fix inefficiencies first. Find out where money is being wasted and fix it. When these are taken care of we can get a real idea of what insurance costs.

Getting rid of medicare/medicaid would be a start.

Might as well add the VA benefits too........then you include most people over 65 or disabled and just about everyone making what........$30K a year or less.......Just for a kicker though, I'd stop all and any Social security and Assistance benefits too.... Ought to make it much easy to insure everyone a few years down the road when a majority of them are gone.........:roll:

EDIT: Fixed an obvious spelling error......

:thumbsup: where do we sign up?

I thought conservatives were railing against the so called "death panels". It sounds to me like it's ok if the market itself is the death panel.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: mrwabam

1. Do you consider it a problem that there are 50mil uninsured people in this country? What is your proposal for dealing with this in an orderly way? You must answer this question under the assumption that they will get cared for if they get sick, it's just a matter of who pays for it. Dont bother preaching personal responsibility, because that is not a solution, just a diversion.

No, health care is not and should not be considered a birth right. Having to actually pay for insurance is a pretty darn good motivator to go out and get a job with health benefits. If you choose or are unable to do that, die, seriously die. Darwin would turn over in his grave if he saw the crazy state humans were going to.

2. Our health care spending consumes almost twice our gdp when compared to other countries. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

It is a bad thing. It should be cheaper, and I think some health reform would be good. ObamaCare (as it has been presented so far) is way too much and will do nothing to actually lower costs in the US.

3. Healthcare spending and premiums are growing at a faster clip than inflation and wage growth. How do you propose slowing this down?

Simple.... Have health insurance be like home/car/pretty much every other insurance available.

My home is insured, if there is an earthquake or other catastrophic event that wrecks knocks my house down I get money. If I get a heart attack, my health insurance would pay to fix me.

My insurance does not pay for upkeep of my house (painting the walls, putting in new bathroom, upgrading the sinks, replacing old pipes, etc...).... My health insurance shouldn't pay for my annual physicals/upkeep either.

If I treat my house like shit, I am liable if it falls apart. If i don't do my preventative maintenance and treat my body like shit, i should be liable and either let die, or have to pay out of pocket.

So if I am starting out in the workplace, straight out of college, and I am flat broke looking for a job and cant afford insurance at the time, I should just die if I get in a car accident? What about small children with broke ass parents? It's easy to say that behind a keyboard. I'd like to see you blocking the entrance to the ER to a penniless pregnant woman who was in a major accident. I bet you wouldnt be so tough then.

No one is denied medical care in the United States because of their inability to pay.

 

[Pens1566]

Yeah, if you call being stabilized by an ER "medical care".

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A competitor with reasonable costs without the denial of care, cancellations, or other tricks to get people to leave will cause people to flock to it, leaving regular insurance companies with the option of reducing their massive profits by actually covering people like they are supposed to now.

Again with the "massive profits" thing? How do 1% to 3% profit margins equate to being too "massive"??

When 99% of healthcare costs are s result of the rest of the healthcare system, why do you continue to focus blame on the insurance companies? Is it because Obama and Pelosi told you to?

Are you sure about that 99% figure there?

not entirely... but it's close. The only numbers I could find sre HERE, which total roughly $13 Bn for the top 13 health insurance companies (listed in terms of total revenue).

So...

$13 billion in 2008 profits / $2.1 trillion in national healthcare costs (15% 2008 GDP) = 0.6%

That leaves roughly 99.4% of the problem lying elsewhere, and that's only if you begrudge them their entire profits -- the whopping 3.3% margin that it is.

Hundreds of other articles reference the other costs in healthcare, but only the most biased of sources focus on the insurance company profits or CEO salaries.

Fun stats: Doctors spent over $35 Bn managing paperwork in 2008, and total "administration costs" in the healthcare industry were over $130 Bn.

IOW, those who harp on insurance company profits being anything more than a drop in the bucket -- at a whopping 3.3% profit margin -- are fucking retarded.

EDIT: Hell, only 13 Health Insurance/Managed Care companies were in the Fortune 1000, and only 7 of those were Fortune 500 last year.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: ElFenix

anyone can already buy insurance from any provider regardless of what their employer offers.

and are you advocating community rating?

The problem with your statement is that if I buy into Cigna for example, and my employer has Blue Cross Blue Shield, I have to pay the entire cost myself, not realistic.

it's obvious that's the problem you saw, but your solution wasn't anything that would fix the problem.

What do you mean when you refer to community rating?

study up on the history of prepaid medical and insurance. in community rating the insurance companies basically have to charge everyone the same rate, regardless of whether that person is young and healthy or old and sickly. that's how all medical insurance originally worked and, iirc, the blues still have to operate that way.

in experience rating people get charged premiums according to the actuarial tables. it's how practically all other insurance works. 16 year old males have higher premiums than 45 year old women, people with sports cars have higher premiums than those with minivans, etc.

My issue with how pooling is done is that in a company that I am in (50 people) if 3 of us have kids (we are a young company, median age in the low 30s) our premiums go up by 25% (which is what happened this year). The insurance company is trying to re-coup the money from US only, and that's wrong. Does that mean a different company that has 50 employees and had no kids born got a reduction? I seriously doubt it.

no, they kept their lower rate. you want to have a kid in the hospital and not pay for it?

You missed my point. By your logic here, if someone in my company gets cancer, and our rates go up 300% you will say 'you want to have cancer and not pay for it'. The point of insurance is that everyone pays X, so that when a percentage of X gets sick, the people who didn't get sick that year pay for the ones that did. Or am I missing something ?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A competitor with reasonable costs without the denial of care, cancellations, or other tricks to get people to leave will cause people to flock to it, leaving regular insurance companies with the option of reducing their massive profits by actually covering people like they are supposed to now.

Again with the "massive profits" thing? How do 1% to 3% profit margins equate to being too "massive"??

When 99% of healthcare costs are s result of the rest of the healthcare system, why do you continue to focus blame on the insurance companies? Is it because Obama and Pelosi told you to?

Are you sure about that 99% figure there?

not entirely... but it's close. The only numbers I could find sre HERE, which total roughly $13 Bn for the top 13 health insurance companies (listed in terms of total revenue).

So...

$13 billion in 2008 profits / $2.1 trillion in national healthcare costs (15% 2008 GDP) = 0.6%

That leaves roughly 99.4% of the problem lying elsewhere.

Hundreds of other articles reference the other costs in healthcare, but only the most biased of sources focus on the insurance company profits or CEO salaries.

Fun stats: Doctors spent over $35 Bn managing paperwork in 2008, and total "administration costs" in the healthcare industry were over $130 Bn.

IOW, those who harp on insurance company profits being anything more than a drop in the bucket -- at a whopping 3.3% profit margin -- are fucking retarded.

So its "fucking retarded" to wonder why their percentage of revenue paid out to doctors/hospitals has gone from 97% a few years ago to 80% now?? Just curious.

 

[soundforbjt]

I see alot of people here harping about tort reform. It hasn't worked in IL or TX, what makes you think it will work anywhere else?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A competitor with reasonable costs without the denial of care, cancellations, or other tricks to get people to leave will cause people to flock to it, leaving regular insurance companies with the option of reducing their massive profits by actually covering people like they are supposed to now.

Again with the "massive profits" thing? How do 1% to 3% profit margins equate to being too "massive"??

When 99% of healthcare costs are s result of the rest of the healthcare system, why do you continue to focus blame on the insurance companies? Is it because Obama and Pelosi told you to?

Are you sure about that 99% figure there?

not entirely... but it's close. The only numbers I could find sre HERE, which total roughly $13 Bn for the top 13 health insurance companies (listed in terms of total revenue).

So...

$13 billion in 2008 profits / $2.1 trillion in national healthcare costs (15% 2008 GDP) = 0.6%

That leaves roughly 99.4% of the problem lying elsewhere.

Hundreds of other articles reference the other costs in healthcare, but only the most biased of sources focus on the insurance company profits or CEO salaries.

Fun stats: Doctors spent over $35 Bn managing paperwork in 2008, and total "administration costs" in the healthcare industry were over $130 Bn.

IOW, those who harp on insurance company profits being anything more than a drop in the bucket -- at a whopping 3.3% profit margin -- are fucking retarded.

So its "fucking retarded" to wonder why their percentage of revenue paid out to doctors/hospitals has gone from 97% a few years ago to 80% now?? Just curious.

I dunno just a wild guess but, shrinking profit margins of insurance companies due to the rise in cost of healthcare?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: soundforbjt
I see alot of people here harping about tort reform. It hasn't worked in IL or TX, what makes you think it will work anywhere else?

Because tort reform ALONE can not fix all the problems because it does not encompass all the problems, but it will help a lot.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight

I dunno just a wild guess but, shrinking profit margins of insurance companies due to the rise in cost of healthcare?

So that explains why with costs rising faster than inflation/wages that the insurance companies have managed to slash outlays to provider by ~14% and their profit goes .... down? Does not compute.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Are you sure about that 99% figure there?

not entirely... but it's close. The only numbers I could find sre HERE, which total roughly $13 Bn for the top 13 health insurance companies (listed in terms of total revenue).

So...

$13 billion in 2008 profits / $2.1 trillion in national healthcare costs (15% 2008 GDP) = 0.6%

That leaves roughly 99.4% of the problem lying elsewhere.

Hundreds of other articles reference the other costs in healthcare, but only the most biased of sources focus on the insurance company profits or CEO salaries.

Fun stats: Doctors spent over $35 Bn managing paperwork in 2008, and total "administration costs" in the healthcare industry were over $130 Bn.

IOW, those who harp on insurance company profits being anything more than a drop in the bucket -- at a whopping 3.3% profit margin -- are fucking retarded.

So its "fucking retarded" to wonder why their percentage of revenue paid out to doctors/hospitals has gone from 97% a few years ago to 80% now?? Just curious.

I see what you did there... but that's not at all what I said. You saw that my math was correct, so you completely changed directions.

Cute.

I thought the issue being discussed, and the accusations being leveled, were the Health Insurance Company profits relative to total national healthcare costs...?

My first guess regarding the drop in revenue given to doctors? Perhaps it's the dramatically increasing administrative costs... Or, are you suggesting that CEO salaries, yet another proverbial drop in the bucket when it comes to costs, are the main factor?

Please say yes. Please tell me that you think it's "teh evul rich CEE EE OHZ!!111" that are the main issue when it comes to the GDP% we spend on healthcare.

I could use a good laugh.