Health care reform...why not?
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, March 11, 2010 19:40
VIEWED: 2349
PAGE 1 of 3
All the anger about health insurance reform confuses me. Because health care in this country is SO bad, given the games and profit-motive-based actions of the for-profit insurance companies are out there, every day, on the news, showing all the problems. Why are so many people so vociferous in their hatred of reform? Is it just the Dems and Obama? Is it uneducation? Is it fear of government-run health care? Is it the old "I've got mine; screw you" attitude? Why are so many in denial about the atrocious actions of our for-profit health insurers and so unwilling to conceive of reform? It's all around you; it's undeniable; it is ruining our country. Why won't people take the time to read a few of the facts, and instead keep repeating the lies we're inundated with? This is just a small taste; read it and tell me we don't need health insurance reform. I dare anyone to read all of this and defend our for-profit health insurance system.Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009
Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.
Three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care.
The star witness at the hearing was a former public relations executive for major health insurers whose testimony boiled down to this: Don't trust the insurers.
"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable -- publicly accountable -- health-care option," said Wendell Potter, who until early last year was vice president for corporate communications at the big insurer Cigna.
Potter said he worries "that the industry's charm offensive, which is the most visible part of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns, may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans."
Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said.
The report released yesterday alleges that insurers have systematically underpaid for out-of-network care. The issue had been brought to light previously in litigation, committee hearings and other investigations, including a probe by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. Cuomo described it last year as "a scheme by health insurers to defraud consumers by manipulating reimbursement rates."
As it turns out, insurers typically used numbers from Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of the big insurer UnitedHealth Group. Ingenix had an incentive to produce benchmarks that low-balled usual and customary rates and shifted costs from insurers to their customers, the report said.
Insurers that contributed information to Ingenix often "scrubbed" their data to remove high charges, and Ingenix further manipulated the numbers, removing valid high charges from its calculations, the report said.
062401636.html recent article in the National Journal has detailed some of the money spent to try to stop, slow down or derail healthcare reform. The sums are staggering. Some on Capitol Hill are calling for investigations. Why? We know that insurance companies have used every tool at their disposal because they had to. A robust national healthcare plan (public option) would cost the health insurance business billions of dollars. If they are found with their hand in the cookie jar, the American people will be — upset. From their standpoint, so what? It isn’t as if the American people are going to stop using health insurance.
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2010/01/14/insurance-compan
ies-tried-to-rig-the-game/Quote:
Six of
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Dems are beating an already dead horse to a new death. Americans just don't want it, no matter how many times Obama or Pelosi or Reid tell us that it's good for us, and that they know what's best for us in spite of ourselves. The latest Rasmussen Poll (3/5 - 3/6) shows 53% of Americans against Obamacare, and only 42% in favor of it. Congressional approval rating is holding steady at below 20%.
Even Saturday Night Live took a few moments to weigh in on Obama's Healthcare push:
http://www.thefoxnation.com/entertainment/2010/03/08/snl-mocka-dems-pa
thetic-health-care-push
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jongs- Americans have polled over and over and over again THEY WANT THE PUBLIC OPTION.
What they're afraid of... and rightly so... is being force-fed into the maw of the insurances, with tax money lubricating the slide. The problem with Obamacare isn't that it goes too far... the problem is, is doesn't go far enough.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only Public Option polls I can find are from July & August of 2009. The approved Senate Bill has no public option, and no one knows what's in the "new" plan once Reid and Pelosi get done with it. So how can one be in favor of something they know little about? Details? Costs? Personal impact? Billing? Benefits start?....Then just yesterday the CBO came out and stated that Obama has been in-accurately touting the cost savings...it's actually $800+ billion worse than thought :
"Obama Confuses Decades, Inflates Estimated Health Care Savings by $868B"
"Obama boasted Monday that Democrats' health care proposals would cut deficits by $1 trillion "over the next decade," a flub that inflated the actual estimate by $868 billion.
Making his final push for health care reform, pitched his proposal Monday to a crowd in Pennsylvania with a deficit-reduction figure that the White House later admitted missed the mark.
"Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion dollars over the next decade because we're spending our health care dollars more wisely," Obama told an audience at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pa., a suburb north of Philadelphia.
Obama was so proud of these cost-saving numbers in the latest version of health care reform, he delved into a bit of Washington-speak to back them up.
"Those aren't my numbers," Obama said to the rising applause of the estimated 1,300 in attendance. "They are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost."
But the budget office did not say the Senate health care bill would save $1 trillion over the next decade -- or even close to that figure.
It estimated the bill would save $132 billion from 2010 to 2019, leaving Obama's "next decade" estimate $868 billion short.
When contacted about this disparity, a White House official said Obama meant to say the Senate bill would save $1 trillion in its second decade -- a projection that would more closely match congressional analysts' estimates.
The budget office, in estimating possible second-decade savings of up to $1 trillion, also cautioned against putting too much stock in figures for a period so far in the future: "A detailed year-by-year projection for years beyond 2019 ... would not be meaningful, because the uncertainties involved are simply too great."
Nevertheless, Obama is pressing Congress to act on reform measures in the face of united Republican opposition and a Democratic majority that is nervous about the upcoming midterm elections."
On this issue, The Dems lose no matter what they do. 80% of Americans are disgusted with Pelosi & Reid, and I expect we'll see big changes in November.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki,
The reason the current bill is so infuriating is BECAUSE things are so bad. Things do need to change, but the stupid bastards in congress have managed to write a bill that will actually make things worse. The insurance companies have been controlling the reform process all along, ensuring that it protects their profits first and foremost.
SergeantX
"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
In the individual market, it is generally legal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with a pre-existing health condition or to sell them a stripped-down policy that doesn’t cover the condition. Alternatively, an insurer might just charge someone with a pre-existing condition more for their health insurance. They may also be allowed to charge more depending on a person’s gender, age, or occupation.
This argument has always interested me.
If you were, say, a kitchen remodeling business, would you charge the same price for all kitchen remodeling jobs? If you knew that one would only require refacing cabinets and new countertops, and another would require demolition to the studs, new walls and floors, high-end appliances and a lot of custom work, would your business stay afloat if you asked the same money for both?
If you're forced to do all jobs at the price of a simple job, you'll go out of business. If you average all jobs and set that as the price, the folks who don't need a full renovation end up paying more than they need to, or going elsewhere.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The nation's five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion, according to a report by the advocacy group Health Care for American Now (HCAN).
"The outsized earnings are a vivid reminder that without comprehensive national health care reform, the gatekeepers of our broken health insurance system always will put the short-term interests of Wall Street before the needs of millions of patients and a national economy plagued by joblessness," the report said.
And we've already been over this one.
There is a difference between profit and profit margin.
For example, Health Care plans currently have a 4.3% profit margin. 86th on the list. Hardly egregious profits.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
If you want to argue healthcare, please argue healthcare. There's plenty of ground to argue on the merits of particular plans. Quit with the half-truths, demonization and scare tactics.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, I didn't post any "half truths", demonizations or scare tactics. What I put up is what's happening today in our country. I can't find anything on the internet that says the health care industry gives better service, isn't harming our economy, doesn't leave millions without health care, or isn't leaving more and more people out of the equation.
You can check any or all of the cites and see if they are reputable, and if you disagree with any, I can probably find what you'd consider a reputable cite (as long as it's not from FauxNews!) that says the same thing. Those are the facts of what's going on in our country, I didn't make them up. Tear 'em apart if you want to, but be specific and post cites to corroborate.
Sig and Serg, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. It's totally wrong that they bailed on the public option, and I won't forgive them. I REALLY won't forgive them if reconciliation doesn't take out some of the most egregious stuff, and they don't go on fighting to improve it.
But as to the bill, yes, nobody likes it, and yes, I too think it's a bad bill. Where did I say anything about this bill? I do happen to believe passing it is better than nothing--we already went through that with Clinton, and if this dies, it'll probably be decades before anyone has the guts to try again. It can be amended and changed--I don't like it, but that's how I FEEL. And my question was the fact that our situation is BAD and needs to be improved somehow.
As to the health insurance reform and polls, the polls have been steady all along with a majority of Americans wanting a public option. THAT is a fact. Here are two recent 2010 public opinion polls on the public option:Quote:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/polls-in-key-stat
Okay, this should really give a boost to those arguing that Dems should pass the public option via reconciliation — for the specific reason that it will make the Senate health reform bill more popular.
A batch of state polls by the non-partisan Research 2000 shows that in multiple states represented by key Dem Senators who will have to decide whether to support reconciliation, the public option polls far better than the Senate bill does, often by lopsided margins.
Here’s a rundown, sent over by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which commissioned the polls:
* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.
* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.
* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.
* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.
* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.
* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
* In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.
es-public-option-far-more-popular-than-senate-plan/ Quote:
QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE
OVERALL 68% 21% 11%
DEMOCRATS 82% 9% 9%
REPUBLICANS 51% 38% 11%
INDEPENDENTS 71% 13% 16%
CO-04 (Markey) 68% 20% 12%
FL-24 (Kosmas) 64% 21% 15%
MI-07 (Schauer) 69% 19% 12%
NC-08 (Kissell) 73% 16% 11%
NM-01 (Heinrich) 71% 17% 12%
NM-02 (Teague) 67% 19% 14%
OH-01 (Driehaus) 66% 26% 8%
OH-15 (Kilroy) 69% 22% 9%
OH-16 (Boccieri) 66% 23% 11%
VA-05 (Perriello) 67% 19% 14%
Even in swing districts, the majority of self-identified Republicans favor a public option. Like poll after poll, the numbers prove that the public option makes health care reform more pop
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
First of all, I didn't post any "half truths", demonizations or scare tactics.
I pointed out two, which you haven't responded to.
There's also:
Quote:
Six of the nation's biggest health insurers began quietly pumping big money into third-party television ads aimed at killing or significantly modifying the major health reform bills moving through Congress.
Acutally might seem reasonable that the health insurers oppose parts of the pending legislation when you consider that one part of it would require them to insure folks with pre-existing conditions at the same price as healthy individuals - thereby raising costs considerably - and another part would prohibit them from raising fees to cover those costs without going through a currently non-existant bureaucracy. If you ran a business, how would you feel about the government requiring you to implement policy cahanges that would increase your cost, and at the same time prohibit you from raising prices to offset those increased costs? Think you might protest?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, you have asked the question I have been asking myself for months. The entire industrialized world is looking at the US healthcare debate and wondering what the problem is. Why wouldn't you want a system that's cheaper and provides more care? It seems like such a no brainer to me. The big thing that drives me crazy is that those who are opposed to universal healthcare don't really understand it - don't get that employers pay the premiums (tiny as they are) in a public, single-payer system the same way that employers in the US (if you're lucky) provide health insurance. But in Canada, for example, the highest premium you or your employer will ever pay is less than $100 a month. And it's a sliding scale - the less you make the less you pay.
We choose our own doctors, hospitals, etc. There's no HMO or anyone telling me who I can see and who I can't. So the argument about choice is a bogus one. A single-payer system is the ultimate in choice because all doctors, hospitials and so on are open to everyone.
Geezer: Access to healthcare is not analagous to home repair. Health is a fundamental part of quality and quantity of life. A new kitchen is not. In Canada and in many countries around the world healthcare is seen as a human right. By the way, for those of you who don't think you should have to pay for the healthcare of others: you already are, in the form of higher prices on consumer goods (ask manufacturers about the cost of providing health insurance to their employees), ridiculous insurance premiums, and lost productivity due to chronic illness and absenteeism. I frankly hate making an economic arugment because I think it's beside the point. But it seems to be the only way to get through to some people. Your system is broken and unbelieveably expensive. Why wouldn't you support a reform that would lead to cheaper coverage for everyone?
*
People before profits
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME