Question for opponents of health reform

[Pens1566]

Well, when the original post (not of mine) that you quoted was pretty obviously talking about that, I think its the same direction. Your math was correct for a change.

Not suggesting CEO salaries at all, more like that what Wendell Potter says is completely 100% accurate. I've yet to see anyone refute his statements about the industry. Carry on.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 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.

What death panel? Subsidized medicine = death panel. No government medicine = no death panel. I am advocating the latter. You can hang me if people start dying on the street.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

FACT: There were only 13 Health Insurance companies in the Fortune 1000 in 2008

FACT: There were only 7 Health Insurance companies in the Fortune 500 in 2008.

FACT: Health Insurance corporate profits accounted for less than 1% of the total U.S. healthcare expenditures in 2008.

FACT: The average profit margin for Health Insurance companies was a measly 3.3% in 2008.

FACT: These profit numbers are on course to stay roughly the same in 2009.

/discuss.

 

[Pens1566]

Why use 2 different Fortune lists?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: 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.

Umm, yeah they are... for long term conditions like Cancer and Aids... they absolutely are.

A breast cancer patient was dropped from coverage because she failed to report previous Acne... the hospital refused to operate unless she put $30,000 as a down payment. It wasn't til congress intervened that they gave her coverage back.. but by then the tumor had already grown.

 

[shadow9d9]

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, 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.

When profits go up 1000% in 5 years while covering less people... Yeah, they are the problem.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: 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.

What death panel? Subsidized medicine = death panel. No government medicine = no death panel. I am advocating the latter. You can hang me if people start dying on the street.

Death panels?

Potter, who spent 15 years at CIGNA, said health plans have a financial incentive to cancel the policies of their most costly members and have implemented strategies to do so. ?They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy,? he testified. And canceling policies for even a small number of such members can have ?a big effect? on the bottom line, he added. ?Where is the logic and the humanity of having pre-existing conditions not covered in our society?? Potter asked. He noted that his testimony wasn?t aimed at CIGNA specifically, but rather at an industry that he said is ?taking this country in the wrong direction.?


"Potter described in written testimony how insurers use "purging" ? unrealistic rate increases ? to drive off less profitable employers. Citing a USA Today report, he recalled how CIGNA boosted rates in 2006 for the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust so much that for some family plans, premiums would have topped $44,000 a year."

It was a nightmare scenario. The day before she was scheduled to undergo a double mastectomy for invasive breast cancer, Robin Beaton's health insurance company informed her that she was "red flagged" and they wouldn't pay for her surgery. The hospital wanted a $30,000 deposit before they would move forward. Beaton had no choice but to forgo the life-saving surgery.

Beaton had dutifully signed up for individual insurance when she retired from nursing to start a small business. She had never missed a payment, but that didn't matter. Blue Cross cited two earlier, unrelated conditions that she hadn't reported to them when signing up ? acne and a fast beating heart ? and rescinded her policy.

Beaton pleaded with the company and had her doctors write letters on her behalf to no avail. It was not until Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) personally called Blue Cross that her policy was reinstated and she could undergo surgery. In that year, Beaton's tumor doubled in size, leading to further complications necessitating the removal of her lymph glands as well."


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html


There are your death panels. Insurances who make insane profits by killing people.

You morons just keep repeating your talking points without actually EVER addressing reality.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Why use 2 different Fortune lists?

The same reason you use the S&P 500 and the S&P 1000

One contains the other but gives you a larger picture.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
When profits go up 1000% in 5 years while covering less people... Yeah, they are the problem.

"profits go up 1000%!!!1" sure makes for a nice soundbite, eh?

1. If their profit margins still hover around a measly 3.3%, "the problem" can't be greed. So what are you suggesting is "the problem"?

2. Is your ultimate goal to eliminate a whopping 0.6% of our national healthcare costs?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
When profits go up 1000% in 5 years while covering less people... Yeah, they are the problem.

"profits go up 1000%!!!1" sure makes for a nice soundbite, eh?

1. If their profit margins still hover around a measly 3.3%, "the problem" can't be greed. So what are you suggesting is "the problem"?

2. Is your ultimate goal to eliminate a whopping 0.6% of our national healthcare costs?

It's emotional liberal rage, don't try to understand it.

 

[soundforbjt]

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

As I pointed out in my original post..it hasn't helped at all in IL or TX, yet you still beleive it will help.

Let me guess, you're a fox watcher.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
FACT: There were only 13 Health Insurance companies in the Fortune 1000 in 2008

FACT: There were only 7 Health Insurance companies in the Fortune 500 in 2008.

FACT: Health Insurance corporate profits accounted for less than 1% of the total U.S. healthcare expenditures in 2008.

FACT: The average profit margin for Health Insurance companies was a measly 3.3% in 2008.

FACT: These profit numbers are on course to stay roughly the same in 2009.

/discuss.

You assume liberals debate facts.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

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

As I pointed out in my original post..it hasn't helped at all in IL or TX, yet you still beleive it will help.

Let me guess, you're a fox watcher.

You don't quite "get it" do you? Airway, breathing, circulation. In a unconscience, unresponsive victim this is the order you check them out, because if they have no airway they can't breate, it doesn't matter if they have circuation. Fixing ONE part of a system that is broken in MANY isn't going to fix anything. Whatever point you are trying to make is moot.

Let me guess, you are another that makes stupid assumptions about people they don't know because of your agenda? Yip.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

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

As I pointed out in my original post..it hasn't helped at all in IL or TX, yet you still beleive it will help.

Let me guess, you're a fox watcher.

Study shows defensive medicine widespread

About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons.

Such practices were estimated to cost a minimum of $1.4 billion per year in Massachusetts.

http://advance.uconn.edu/2009/090223/09022302.htm

Just one example. It is not about the actual law suit but the cost of defensive medicine.

 

[Elias824]

Its nice too see an actually constructive OP rather then each side just yelling at each other. I think there does need to be some kind of reform, but I think the obama bill goes way to far and dosent really fix enough problems. Although there are alot of interesting ideas as well.

1. We really need a to find a way of actually increasing the amount of care available, we can hand out more scholarships to doctors, try to get medical companies to build more hospitals, hell I dont know all the best ways to do this but im sure we can find some reasonable way.

2. yes tort reform, its no the only answer but it does help, doctors have to pay an unbelievable amount for mal-practice insurance, this is kind of a tricky issue because obviously we dont want doctors to be able to get away with chopping arms off, but we dont want to toss them out on the street because the made and easy mistake. Im sure somone can find some crazy law suits were people got paid alot for something they really shouldn't have.

3. Force insurance companies to not drop people for pre-existing conditions, or simple little things. They are going to get treatment anyways and id rather had the insurance companies eat the cost then the hospitals.

4. Force people to have some form of health coverage or give them some form of tax increase (was in the obama plan) . Once again it goes with the bigger the risk pool the better, these people will need care sooner or later, and its a matter of who is going to eat the cost, if they get cancer and get to declare bankruptcy then the hospitals end up eating the cost again. Its the same reason everyone has to have car insurance, except in this case someone else can still pay for it. People who dont make as much are often covered by some form of govt plan already, make them actually use it.

5. If people use the emergency room in an obvious non-emergency then they should be promptly put to sleep for idiocy.

Most of the above ideas are really more novelty then anything, the simple fact is still that alot of people need treatment, and there is really only so much, changing the name on your bill really dosent do much in terms of solving the bottom issue. So all you can really do is to try to keep in shape and eat healthy.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Elias824
4. Force people to have some form of health coverage or give them some form of tax increase (was in the obama plan) . Once again it goes with the bigger the risk pool the better, these people will need care sooner or later, and its a matter of who is going to eat the cost, if they get cancer and get to declare bankrupcy then the hospitals end up eating the cost again. Its the same reason everyone has to have car insurance, except in this case someone else can still pay for it. People who dont make as much are often covered by some form of govt plan already, make them actually use it.

Can't get behind forcing people to do something just because someone else thinks it's what they should do. How about instead force people to accept responsibility for their own actions, or inactions as the case may be. Don't want to pay for insurance? Fine, but don't cry to have others pay when the bill comes due.

5. If people use the emergency room in an obvious non-emergency then they should be promptly put to sleep for idiocy.

Something definitely has to be done about this special class of idiot.

 

[xj0hnx]

* silly internet

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


Can't get behind forcing people to do something just because someone else thinks it's what they should do. How about instead force people to accept responsibility for their own actions, or inactions as the case may be. Don't want to pay for insurance? Fine, but don't cry to have others pay when the bill comes due.

I do really hate this idea too to be honest, but the problem is that if people are un-insured and end up having to have very expensive procedures. It will very easyily bankrupt them and then they get to opt out of having to pay and everyone else gets to eat that cost.

 

[Vic]

My alternative is simple. I want to be able to shop for my own health insurance coverage with the exact same tax breaks and the exact same employer contribution as I would get if I were to stick with my employer's option (because my employer get tax breaks for that too). Either that, or no tax breaks for anyone and we all shop for our health insurance on a level playing field unaffected by today's massive govt subsidies and tax breaks.

The status quo IS govt subsidized medicine. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot in complete denial of obvious reality.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Can't get behind forcing people to do something just because someone else thinks it's what they should do. How about instead force people to accept responsibility for their own actions, or inactions as the case may be. Don't want to pay for insurance? Fine, but don't cry to have others pay when the bill comes due.

I do really hate this idea too to be honest, but the problem is that if people are un-insured and end up having to have very expensive procedures. It will very easyily bankrupt them and then they get to opt out of having to pay and everyone else gets to eat that cost.

Exactly. The problem with john's idea is that it doesn't work in reality. It's not crying that causes others to pay when the bill comes due, it's because you can't get blood out of a turnip. I suppose we could switch to some kind of pay upfront system, but then the medical industry would have to disclose its costs beforehand, and I am 100% certain that is the last thing they would want.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


Can't get behind forcing people to do something just because someone else thinks it's what they should do. How about instead force people to accept responsibility for their own actions, or inactions as the case may be. Don't want to pay for insurance? Fine, but don't cry to have others pay when the bill comes due.

I do really hate this idea too to be honest, but the problem is that if people are un-insured and end up having to have very expensive procedures. It will very easyily bankrupt them and then they get to opt out of having to pay and everyone else gets to eat that cost.

That's where taking responsibility for their own actions comes into play, THEY didn't want to pay for insurance, so they get to deal with their screwed up life. It's the same thing if your house burns down and you don't have insurance, I don't see some national push to provide comprehensive homeowners coverage to people that don't want to pay for it, but the financial results can be very similar.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


Can't get behind forcing people to do something just because someone else thinks it's what they should do. How about instead force people to accept responsibility for their own actions, or inactions as the case may be. Don't want to pay for insurance? Fine, but don't cry to have others pay when the bill comes due.

I do really hate this idea too to be honest, but the problem is that if people are un-insured and end up having to have very expensive procedures. It will very easyily bankrupt them and then they get to opt out of having to pay and everyone else gets to eat that cost.

That's where taking responsibility for their own actions comes into play, THEY didn't want to pay for insurance, so they get to deal with their screwed up life. It's the same thing if your house burns down and you don't have insurance, I don't see some national push to provide comprehensive homeowners coverage to people that don't want to pay for it, but the financial results can be very similar.

Like was posted above, its been tried but it really dosent work. We could stop treatment of people if they couldn't pay for it, but then you may end up killing people because they couldn't pay, and thats kind of a moral issue. This wouldn't force them to get care, they would simply have to pay some form of tax or another because they are going to end up costing everyone money. Im all for personal responsibility, but the problem is there isnt really a good way of forcing people to be responsible, I just think the smart ones should be protected from getting screwed by the irresponsible. Its the same reason we force people to have car insurance, even if your a good driver the guy who hits you needs to pay for his shit, if he cant then your the guy who gets screwed.

I freaking hate analogies but the car insurance ones seems to fit well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


Can't get behind forcing people to do something just because someone else thinks it's what they should do. How about instead force people to accept responsibility for their own actions, or inactions as the case may be. Don't want to pay for insurance? Fine, but don't cry to have others pay when the bill comes due.

I do really hate this idea too to be honest, but the problem is that if people are un-insured and end up having to have very expensive procedures. It will very easyily bankrupt them and then they get to opt out of having to pay and everyone else gets to eat that cost.

That's where taking responsibility for their own actions comes into play, THEY didn't want to pay for insurance, so they get to deal with their screwed up life. It's the same thing if your house burns down and you don't have insurance, I don't see some national push to provide comprehensive homeowners coverage to people that don't want to pay for it, but the financial results can be very similar.

Are you 12 years old or something? People who don't want to pay for their homeowners insurance get force placed by their mortgage company (meaning their mortgage company gets insurance for them and add the cost onto their mortgage payments). For precisely the reason that has already been used as the argument against your platitudes. If their house burns down and they don't have any insurance, they don't 'take responsibility' for their actions as you imagine, they just have the bank take the property back and eat the loss. Which in turn gets passed onto the rest of us by way of higher interest rates, bank fees, etc.

 

[Elias824]

lets not call each other names, calling someone 12 is hardly a sound argument. Sorry just drives me nuts when I see people drop to name calling. The thing about the banks though is they can pretty much regulate themselves in that manor, they dont really need much help with that, they can force people to add home owners insurance or they want to buy a home. The hospitals cant really not treat somebody if the dont have insurance, once again thats a big moral issue. Im curious if anyone can think of another industry where this is also true.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Elias824

Originally posted by: xj0hnx


Can't get behind forcing people to do something just because someone else thinks it's what they should do. How about instead force people to accept responsibility for their own actions, or inactions as the case may be. Don't want to pay for insurance? Fine, but don't cry to have others pay when the bill comes due.

I do really hate this idea too to be honest, but the problem is that if people are un-insured and end up having to have very expensive procedures. It will very easyily bankrupt them and then they get to opt out of having to pay and everyone else gets to eat that cost.

That's where taking responsibility for their own actions comes into play, THEY didn't want to pay for insurance, so they get to deal with their screwed up life. It's the same thing if your house burns down and you don't have insurance, I don't see some national push to provide comprehensive homeowners coverage to people that don't want to pay for it, but the financial results can be very similar.

Are you 12 years old or something? People who don't want to pay for their homeowners insurance get force placed by their mortgage company (meaning their mortgage company gets insurance for them and add the cost onto their mortgage payments). For precisely the reason that has already been used as the argument against your platitudes. If their house burns down and they don't have any insurance, they don't 'take responsibility' for their actions as you imagine, they just have the bank take the property back and eat the loss. Which in turn gets passed onto the rest of us by way of higher interest rates, bank fees, etc.

Why are you under the silly impression that everyone in the country has a mortgage and homeowner's insurance? Many homeowners live in homes that are paid off and lack both. Just sayin'...