Health care reform...why not?
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, March 11, 2010 19:40
VIEWED: 2349
PAGE 2 of 3
Which two? I responded to the one about profit margins; I see no other. Show me any "half-truths"; the profits they are making are as quoted--yes, there's a valid point that the percentages aren't as bad, but the amount is real. As to demonization and scare tactics; what I posted is from other sources, it's not either one, it's the facts on one side of the argument.
Percentages of profits does not take into account the huge salaries; combine the two, and you get:Quote:
http://hcfan.3cdn.net/a9ce29d3038ef8a1e1_dhm6b9q0l.pdf
The five largest U.S. health insurance companies
sailed through the worst economic downturn since
the Great Depression to set new industry profit
records in 2009, a feat accomplished by leaving
behind 2.7 million Americans who had been in
private health plans. For customers who kept their
benefits, the insurers raised rates and cost-sharing,
and cut the share of premiums spent on medical
care.1 Executives and shareholders of the five
biggest for-profit health insurers, UnitedHealth
Group Inc., WellPoint Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana
Inc., and Cigna Corp., enjoyed combined profit
of $12.2 billion in 2009, up 56 percent from the
previous year. It was the best year ever for Big
Insurance.
The outsize 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 2009 financial reports from the nation’s five
largest insurance companies reveal that:
• The firms made $12.2 billion, an increase of
$4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008.
• Four out of the five companies saw earnings
increases, with CIGNA’s profits jumping
346 percent.
• The companies provided private insurance
coverage to 2.7 million fewer people than the
year before.
• Four out of the five companies insured fewer
people through private coverage. United-
Health alone insured 1.7 million fewer
people through employer-based or individual
coverage.
• All but one of the five companies increased
the number of people they covered through
public insurance programs (Medicaid, CHIP
and Medicare). UnitedHealth added 680,000
people in public plans.
• The proportion of premium dollars spent on
health care expenses went down for three of
the five firms, with higher proportions going to
administrative expenses and profits.
It's perfectly reasonable to have higher premiums for more possible costs, but the ratio has been out of proportion, changed dramatically from what it was before in order to increase profits. Now the only option left are "high-risk pools", and they don't work, from what I see:Quote:
http://www.ame
The biggest barrier to enrollment is cost. High-risk pools are inevitably expensive because all of the enrollees have medical conditions that could potentially result in costly medical bills, which means the pools cannot spread costs across low-risk and high-risk individuals. Despite attempts to cap premium rates, the coverage is still unaffordable for many. In fact, a recent study found that premiums for high-risk pools are unaffordable for about one-third of eligible individuals. High premiums and high deductibles are often a greater burden on individuals with expensive medical conditions who have already spent large amounts of their income on health care.
Some proponents refer to high-risk pools as “safety nets,” but in reality, the pools do not provide a guarantee of coverage. Most have an exclusion period—some period of time during which an insurer can exclude coverage for certain medical conditions that exist before the insurer issues coverage. These exclusion periods can last anywhere from 90 days to 1 year. Some pools cannot afford to admit more individuals; they either have waiting lists or are completely closed to new enrollees. In the meantime, individuals with costly conditions must go without coverage.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, thank you Unabashed...you were posting as i was writing my last response. I don't remember having seen you before, but your entire post was right on, as far as I'm concerned, and speaks to the initial topic: WHY don't we want it changed?? The anti-reform situation has been caused by misinformation, lies and scare tactics (as I was accused of using, which I didn't) which have brainwashed the American people to think any kind of government help is deadly.
I, too, don't understand it; given all the facts I've cited, I don't understand why, bill or no bill, public option or not, people aren't standing up and screaming that it simply ISN'T WORKING and we need to change it. It mystifies me, and it's the reason for this thread. I'm afraid it's devolved into debating the insurance companies, but as I said above, it's their JOB to make profits, but it's not working that way.
And on your most excellent argument, I will quit now. I've been here all morning on this or other topics, and trying to look up facts to cite. It's well past time to quit, and it seems obvious my question isn't being addressed, so it's time to give up, as well.
I envy you your country's solutions to this problem, as I envy all the other countries who are grappling with it and finding ways to solve it; I only wish WE were!
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by Niki-
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
but why, if you agree that it's a bad bill? obviously this is a very contentious subject, but can we all agree that once they pass an entitlement we're stuck with it? look at social security and medicare, we're talking 10's of trillions in unfunded obligations. i think its wise to err on the side of less government intervention, not more. who's to say that government intervention didnt create the current environment? the laws that are established which benefit the insurance companies are passed by congress. my only point is, we need to be deconstructing this system and making it more local and personalized; not committing more money and creating more centralized authorities. thats the real crux of the debate
Quote:
--we already went through that with Clinton, and if this dies, it'll probably be decades before anyone has the guts to try again.
you mean try and push a public option? or reform in general? 'reform' is a legitimate issue, its not going anywhere(save a war/terror attack). its just you will never get 'conservatives', libertarians, or a lot of so-called 'moderates' to go for single payer government care. reform to them may be less government(ideally), more individual choice. and in hindsight, goverment projections are never accurate, these programs are always abused, and consistently riddled with waste and corruption. its not truly capitalism, or a free market, when the government is in collusion with private institutions/corporations, instead it just compounds the problem
and with the devaluation of the dollar and the inflation coming, we will pay a pretty hefty price for subsidizing health care for any and everyone. we dont have an economoy to support the growth to fund even what we have today
Quote:
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
why cant we TRY a real free market in medicine? let the governmeent remain neutral, let the market provide the oppertunity for people to pay their own way- bring costs down by letting the ingenuity of entrepeneurs provide the competition. and not citizen-subsidized competition, but individual freedom of choice. sometimes i wonder that maybe, if we werent so heavily taxed and regulated, we could achieve these things
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The concept of health care run the same way as any other "business" may be fine for you, but it is just plain wrong to me
thats what it is though. we wouldnt have world class physicians, surgeons and the like without the profit motive
something interesting i heard senator Lamar Alexander say at the Obama health-care summit:
Quote:
“Now, some say we need to rein in the insurance companies; maybe we do. But I think it's important to note if we took all of the profits of the health insurance companies entirely away, every single penny of it, we could pay for two days of health insurance for Americans. And that would leave 363 days with costs that are too high. So that’s why we continue to insist that as much as we want to expand access and to do other things in health care, that we shouldn't expand a system that's this expensive, that the best way to increase access is to reduce costs.
i havent looked into this personaly, but it could explain the unfunded medicare/medicaid entitlement bubbles.
Quote:
-especially as they have exemption from monopoly status that other companies do; other countries have recognized health care as something that should be available to all. We haven't, and as a result, millions of people suffer and die.
oh, the bleeding heart. Niki people are not dying en masse. but if they were, it would happen under a single payer too. what about private charity? maybe hollywood can get together, in a sort of 'save Haiti' kind of operation an provide their own funds for the needy. why do the proponants of a public option insist on stealing from me? i can barely take care of myself, you arent 'helping' me by taxing me. as for these exemptions, if it's true, who provides them? the only institution with the authority, the government.
Quote:
why not answer the original question: How can we deny there's a huge problem with what we have, keep the costs from harming our economy further (as it is doing now), and SOLVE THE PROBLEM? Two easy questions: Can you honestly deny we have a serious problem, and how do you suggest solving it? That's what I'm asking.
i think youve heard the suggestions from the republicans by now, its just a matter of whether you subscribe to government intervention or free market capitalism
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I came back here because something struck me while I was watching TV tonight. What the insurance companies are doing is excused by them being a "business". But that's not valid.
First off, they aren't subject to anti-trust laws, as other businesses are. That means they can be monopolies and pretty much do whatever they want, fix prices, etc.
Second; given the premise that they ARE businesses, and that's all that's available to people, is that right???
I can't think of a proper corollary immediately, but it's something like: Say there were only four or five super markets in America. Smaller ones can't make it because they can't get enough "customers". You have to eat, yes? So if your only option is a monopoly of supermarkets, and they can set prices wherever they want, is that right??
The point is: The American people have no choice but to get their health care from for-profit companies.
If you have a pre-existing condition; you are left out, so you die if something happens.
If your condition gets too costly, you get dropped, so you die if something happens.
If you can't afford insurance, you die if something happens.
No, you don't "die" officially under those scenarios, but studies show you end up in emergency rooms (which the rest of us pay for) and your chances of dying from lack of adequate care are much higher.
Medical care is something everyone needs, sooner or later. That's just a fact. So why should we go on letting companies whose business it is to make profits--at the cost of denying legitimate claims, raising premiums beyond wage levels, denying coverage for absurd things like babies that are judged too fat or too thin, previous cesearian (sp?) surgeries, dropping patients when their costs get too high, dropping patients because it decreases their profit pool, and on and on.
The point is: Don't blame the insurance companies, it's their JOB to make profits. But people need SOME OTHER O P T I O N!
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In response to your post:
As to having "world class physicians, surgeons and the like", the operant word is "world class", as in they can hold their own with the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the Western World has some form of public option or other, so that doesn't say anything. I can't find anything on the internet that says America has THE best of those in the world; if you can, please cite same. Added to that; given the damage it has done/is doing/will do to our economy and country, is having "world class" really worth it? Especially when it's been shown in other posts that we don't have the best MEDICAL CARE in the world.
As to people dying,Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/
Research in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
45,000 to you is obviously not a big number...that's one every 12 minutes. Sure, many die in car accidents, street violence, etc., but the point is this is preventable.
Obviously you don't care about how many go bankrupt over medical costs, either, so this probably means nothing to you:Quote:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_
Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings. This newest, nationwide study, conducted before the start of the current recession by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School, Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School, and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their home and three-fifths had gone to college.
But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured's bills averaged $26,971. Of the families who started out with insurance but lost it during the course of their illness, medical bills averaged $22,658. "For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments, and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse," said lead author Himmelstein. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."
666715.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_policy+%2Bamp%3B+government
As to the antitrust exemption:Quote:
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal anti-trust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945.
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533) came before the Supreme Court in 1944 on appeal from a district court located in north Georgia. The South-Eastern Underwriters Association controlled 90 percent of the market for fire and other insurance lines in six southern states and set rates at non-competitive levels. Furthermore, it used intimidation, boycotts and other coercive tactics to maintain its monopoly.
The question before the Court was whether or not insurance was a form of "interstate commerce" which could be regulated under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The general opinion in law before this case, according to the Court, was that the business of insurance was not commerce, and the District Court concurred with the opinion.
In short, while not changing the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I came back here because something struck me while I was watching TV tonight. What the insurance companies are doing is excused by them being a "business". But that's not valid.
First off, they aren't subject to anti-trust laws, as other businesses are. That means they can be monopolies and pretty much do whatever they want, fix prices, etc.
Second; given the premise that they ARE businesses, and that's all that's available to people, is that right???
Now you're starting to see what's going on. The problems with health care aren't caused by a free market. The problem is that we've regulated away all the free market forces that should be there to keep them honest. Both health care, and health care insurance, are distorted markets because we've outlawed the competition that a free market requires to balance supply and demand. When you tightly control who can provide a service, customer choice is diminished and prices inflate. And when you heavily regulate an industry, success in that industry becomes more about navigating and manipulating government policy than satisfying customers.
The moral of the story, in my opinion, is that you can't mix capitalism and socialism. If we're not going accept the aspects of a free market that we don't like (wherein some people will get better health care than others), then we need to take health care off the free market system entirely. Going that route has it's own distasteful side effects (many more in my opinion), but it is still much better than the middle of the road disaster we're wading through now.
You simply can't have for profit businesses operating in an environment where the single biggest deciding factor in their success is their ability to manipulate government. That's what we have now. And that's the problem with the proposed legislation. It takes the worst elements of the current situation and amplifies them. It won't make things better to begin with, and it won't simply be a matter of tweaking it later.
SergeantX
"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points all, and I am out of my league trying to comment on the specifics, but as Sarge mentioned free-market medical care, I figured I would toss this one in...
Before the accident which near killed me, most of my medical care, that consisting of general scratch n dent kinda stuff, including damage I didn't exactly wanna have to explain to folk, was handled by a veterinarian and a dentist that I knew in exchange for some cash, labor and various supplies/favors - when Governments and Corporations get in a persons way, PEOPLE find a way...
It shouldn't have to come to that however, and as Sarge notes, the only thing WORSE than one way or the other is the bastard halfbreed monster we have now.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I disagree, Sarge, I think we have ample proof in many aspects of our consumer society that the free market isn't the answer to everything. Are you truly saying Wall Street, for example, needs LESS regulation? I'm betting you are, but I don't think so...I don't think if the health care industry were turned loose on its own that things would get better, rather they'd get worse.
Health care shouldn't be a "business", simple as that. It's people's lives, it's something they have no choice but to buy, and having it only provided by for-profit insurance companies leaves people at the mercy of whatever they choose to get away with to improve profits. JMHO
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Health care shouldn't be a "business", simple as that. It's people's lives, it's something they have no choice but to buy, and having it only provided by for-profit insurance companies leaves people at the mercy of whatever they choose to get away with to improve profits.
Naturally, I disagree. But if that's our consensus as a nation, then we need to socialize it properly. Shit or get off the pot. Straddling the drain is killing us.
SergeantX
"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME