Question for opponents of health reform

[shadow9d9]

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?

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



Emotion? How about facts.



"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/


Sorry, but your profits CANNOT double in one year with a 3.3% profit margin while covering less people and giving less benefits.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

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?

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

Emotion? How about facts.

"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/

Sorry, but your profits CANNOT double in one year with a 3.3% profit margin while covering less people and giving less benefits.

As usual, you didn't bother to answer my questions.

You're talking about "millions," with an 'm', while our real problems lie in the hundreds of wasted billions, with a 'B,' that have almost nothing to do with health insurance profits.

"Emotion" indeed.

Try answering the fucking questions.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

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?

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

Emotion? How about facts.

"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/

Sorry, but your profits CANNOT double in one year with a 3.3% profit margin while covering less people and giving less benefits.

As usual, you didn't bother to answer my questions.

You're talking about "millions," with an 'm', while our real problems lie in the hundreds of wasted billions, with a 'B,' that have almost nothing to do with health insurance profits.

"Emotional" indeed.

Try answering the questions.

I answered question number 1- "If their profit margins still hover around a measly 3.3%, "the problem" can't be greed."

And I showed the greed. Want me to show more?

""They confuse their customers and dump the sick ? all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," said Wendell Potter, who retired as CIGNA's vice president of corporate communications last year. He spent nearly 15 years at the company and four years at Humana."

"Potter, for instance, recalled a trip on a corporate jet from Philadelphia, where CIGNA is headquartered, to Connecticut, where the company's health insurance business is based in Bloomfield. During the flight, he was served lunch on gold-rimmed china with a gold-plated knife and fork.

"I realized for the first time that someone's insurance premiums were paying for me to travel in such luxury," he said on his blog."

"He condemned insurers' efforts to get rid of unprofitable customers, sell policies that can mislead consumers and offer very limited coverage, and pay out as small a portion of premiums as possible for claims in order to boost profits and please Wall Street."

"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."

"CIGNA, responding to Potter's testimony, said Wednesday, "Although we respect that there are different opinions on the solutions, we strongly disagree with the suggestion that, motivated by profits, the insurance industry has deliberately attempted to confuse or unfairly treat covered individuals.""

http://www.courant.com/busines...tjun25,0,4107201.story


I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. Very typical.

You could keep claiming that it is a small portion, but the healthcare companies control the US completely. And we pay double what everyone else pays.. because it goes right into the pockets of insurances.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

But that doesnt reduce costs. Only shifts who is paying it.

I am assuming by your reply you believe insurance companies are who set the prices and are the true cost in the system. Not the providers who actually perform the work, pay the doctors, and invest in health systems.

To this I say you are delusional.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. Very typical.

You could keep claiming that it is a small portion, but the healthcare companies control the US completely. And we pay double what everyone else pays.. because it goes right into the pockets of insurances.

Actually, you didn't answer or address either question. Or, perhaps you didn't understand them...?

Our healthcare costs were roughly $2.1 trillion dollars last year. Of that, health insurance profits accounted for only 0.6% (That's roughly $12.9 billion).

That means that 99.4% of our healthcare "problem" (ie. cost) lies elsewhere.

But maybe that's because you believe that "the healthcare companies control the US completely," which is simply ridiculous. I'm sure we can thank Pelosi's Magic Koolaid for that...

In reality, our problems may have a lot to do with the health insurance company policies and practices, but they have little or nothing to do with their profits.

You're barking up the wrong tree sparky.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 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.

But that doesnt reduce costs. Only shifts who is paying it.

I am assuming by your reply you believe insurance companies are who set the prices and are the true cost in the system. Not the providers who actually perform the work, pay the doctors, and invest in health systems.

To this I say you are delusional.

Step 1. Make assumption.
Step 2. Disprove assumption.
Step 3. Declare victory.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. Very typical.

You could keep claiming that it is a small portion, but the healthcare companies control the US completely. And we pay double what everyone else pays.. because it goes right into the pockets of insurances.

Actually, you didn't answer or address either question. Or, perhaps you didn't understand them...?

Our healthcare costs were roughly $2.1 trillion dollars last year. Of that, health insurance profits accounted for only 0.6% (That's roughly $12.9 billion).

That means that 99.4% of our healthcare "problem" (ie. cost) lies elsewhere.

But maybe that's because you believe that "the healthcare companies control the US completely," which is simply ridiculous. I'm sure we can thank Pelosi's Magic Koolaid for that...

In reality, our problems may have a lot to do with the health insurance company policies and practices, but they have little or nothing to do with their profits.

You're barking up the wrong tree sparky.

To say that their profits are unrelated to the policies is disingenuous.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 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.

But that doesnt reduce costs. Only shifts who is paying it.

I am assuming by your reply you believe insurance companies are who set the prices and are the true cost in the system. Not the providers who actually perform the work, pay the doctors, and invest in health systems.

To this I say you are delusional.

Step 1. Make assumption.
Step 2. Disprove assumption.
Step 3. Declare victory.

Since your response to my question involved this so called competition leading to lower costs as people run away from private insurance. Which will then make insurance companies reduce their profits. What the hell else can one assume other than you believe insurance companies are where costs are derived from that response?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. Very typical.

You could keep claiming that it is a small portion, but the healthcare companies control the US completely. And we pay double what everyone else pays.. because it goes right into the pockets of insurances.

Actually, you didn't answer or address either question. Or, perhaps you didn't understand them...?

Our healthcare costs were roughly $2.1 trillion dollars last year. Of that, health insurance profits accounted for only 0.6% (That's roughly $12.9 billion).

That means that 99.4% of our healthcare "problem" (ie. cost) lies elsewhere.

But maybe that's because you believe that "the healthcare companies control the US completely," which is simply ridiculous. I'm sure we can thank Pelosi's Magic Koolaid for that...

In reality, our problems may have a lot to do with the health insurance company policies and practices, but they have little or nothing to do with their profits.

You're barking up the wrong tree sparky.

To say that their profits are unrelated to the policies is disingenuous.

Apparently you're not smart enough to realize that going after the profits does nothing to solve the problems we might have with their policies. Forget the tree Sparky, it's obvious that you're not even in the right forest.

Once again, and for the last time, how do you plan to address the other 99.4% of our healthcare cost issue?

 

[sportage]

Well I'll post it again...

Well what "is" reform?
Lowering costs out of your pocket... Is that reform?
Lower drug costs... Is that reform?
Putting the brakes on runaway drug costs... Is that reform?
Stopping insurance companies from dropping sick people... Is that reform?
Stopping insurance companies from denying insurance... Is that reform?

Exactly what do we expect from reform?
How do we get there?

And do you really think the "healthcare for profit" insurance companies are
going to allow this "reform" themselves?
Or the insurance owned congress is going to force real reform onto the hand that feeds them?

If CIGNA is going to continue to show a billion dollar profit, and pay CEO's millions,
do you think they are going to want to insure that lady with breast cancer?
Or that kid with leukemia?
Or that guy with diabetes?

Or in the near future, that guy 15#?s over weight, that lady who has a family history of breast cancer, that guy now 35 who smoked when he was 21, that lady with a family history of diabetes?

So just what "is" reform? Just exactly what is going to force CIGNA to insure that lady with breast cancer, or that lady who's mother died from breast cancer?

And just which of the drug companies are going to volunteer to lower their drug costs, freeze current costs, control future costs?

Like Barney Frank once said " just what planet do you spend most of your time on ?"

That is why WE MUST have a government "option" involved.
Anything without will not force any reform. None... Nada... Zipp...

And co-ops? Like I heard one analysis say, if these insurance companies "wanted"
to insure the millions currently without, they already would have. Simple.
Co-ops will not do it...

 

[Elias824]

Yes there is an issue, lets just throw the whole sector over govt control, that will fix everything. What could possible go wrong?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 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.

But that doesnt reduce costs. Only shifts who is paying it.

I am assuming by your reply you believe insurance companies are who set the prices and are the true cost in the system. Not the providers who actually perform the work, pay the doctors, and invest in health systems.

To this I say you are delusional.

They're both equally responsible.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

I'm actually quite shocked by this post :shocked: