Next Pres. Election and Health Ins.

[mykidslovedogs]

You didn't answer the question. How much profit do insurance carriers make?

The answer is, " I don't know" - I am sure it's a lot. But, as I said before, in a free market system, that's really a mute point, because whatever the market will bear is how much providers of healthcare and heathcare services should make. When the market won't bear anymore rate increases, something will change - as is already happening. People are adopting HSAs like crazy, and so far, the great MAjORITY of my clients have been HAPPY with the products they have chosen. Those who want full benefits will pay more and those who can't afford traditional plans or HSAs will ofentimes opt for limited-benefit plans, which offer very good coverage for office visits and prescription drugs at a greatly reduced price. Additionally, super-chain stores are now all competing over the $4 generic prescription list to get customers into their pharmacies, and insurance companies are frantically trying to develop affordable, full-coverage plans for young people to attract them back into the ranks of the insured. (A HUGE portion of the uninsured are currently people in the 19-34 yr old age bracket who are healthy and see less risk than reward in purchasing health insurance).

People will not pay for any product that costs more than their income or more than their lifestyles can bear. Rates will naturally flatten very soon, because insurance companies aren't going to raise their premiums so high that no-one can afford their products. People aren't going to pay more for insurance than what it would cost them to cash-pay....and they aren't going to pay for insurance if they feel they have less risk than reward. That would put the insurance companies out of business and I am sure they aren't stupid enough to do that. By the same token, doctors and providers are not going to be able to negotiate higher rates with insurance companies if it makes it so no-one in the whole United States can afford it. Markets take care of themselves over time.

No one was ever able to answer my earlier question with certainty either...."How many people in single payor systems die or live in excruciating pain while they are stuck on a waiting list?" Isn't that question ultimately more important than how much money their doctor or health insurance company is making?

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I guess I'll ask the obvious question - why not refund part of the premiums to the customers?

Mike - I have to say I am in agreement with you on this question. The main reason why Kaiser, in particular, gets heat over making too much profit is because Kaiser is a HUGE proponent of single-payor systems. Why? Because Kaiser is trying to position themselves as THE single-payor....and they're doing a pretty good job at it. It would be hypocritical of them to take too much profit. (I can't stand hypocricsy). In all likelihood...if we ever get to the point where we go single-payor, Kaiser will be the system that the gov't will contract with to administrate it.....and that's exactly what they want. Don't be fooled folks...Kaiser is no different than any other evil, profit-taking corporation...they are preparing for a single-payor system and they know that they will be one of the only health administration systems that survives and profits off of it!

Don't get me wrong. I like Kaiser's reputation and they provide a good product, but they are saavy. They know how to attract business from people who don't like evil insurance companies....they put out a lot of negative reporting about our current system, in-part, because they know it helps them attract business from people who generally hate health insurance companies, AND because it helps them position themselves as the single payor system administrator when the "inevitable" happens.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

No one was ever able to answer my earlier question with certainty either...."How many people in single payor systems die or live in excruciating pain while they are stuck on a waiting list?" Isn't that question ultimately more important than how much money their doctor or health insurance company is making?

I can! A whole lot more people die or live in excruciating pain because they dont have insurance. The reason they dont have insurance is because they would dent the profitability of the insurance company.

I'm unaware of any concrete documented cases of someone in a single payer system that died because of bureaucracy, wait times or other reasons that are in excess of any other type of system. I'm also unaware of any concrete data that shows that people in a single payer system suffer more than people in any other system do.

But none of that would ever change your mind. You're on a jihad to protect your current way of life, regardless of the implications.

I just hope that once we become like cuba, that all four billion of us dont have to move to that little island.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I can! A whole lot more people die or live in excruciating pain because they dont have insurance. The reason they dont have insurance is because they would dent the profitability of the insurance company.

I'm unaware of any concrete documented cases of someone in a single payer system that died because of bureaucracy, wait times or other reasons that are in excess of any other type of system. I'm also unaware of any concrete data that shows that people in a single payer system suffer more than people in any other system do.

But none of that would ever change your mind. You're on a jihad to protect your current way of life, regardless of the implications.

I just hope that once we become like cuba, that all four billion of us dont have to move to that little island.

Cute - did you watch these videos?:

On The Fence Films :: Movies

You are unaware, because our media only gives attention to one side of the story.

 

[kcowan]

HMO Profit Margins Increasing

You didn't answer the question. How much profit do insurance carriers make?

 

[Brat]

I think Kaiser is incorporated as a not-for-profit. I have been insured by them for most of my life (they don't operate in my current locale) and found their care excellent. A former neighbor is a physician in their organization. I recall when AIDS first surfaced she said that they had a concern about the extent of their reserves so that they could care for those patients.

It is a fine line a not-for-profit must walk to assure that reserves are adequate yet they don't have problems with their status. Consider the cost of care when the next pandemic arrives (and it will, it is a biological certainty).

The spending pattern described by an earlier poster is not appropriate. I wish the money were invested in patient care information technology upgrades in the facilities that care for their members (Kaiser patients are often cared for in non-Kaiser facilities), it would benefit the medical community as a whole.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Cute -

Since you are unaware of a SINGLE example, here are a few more for you to ponder:

Health Care America : Choice

Health Care America : Choice

Health Care America : Choice

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

"Health Care America is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit advocacy organization devoted to promoting the fundamental principles of access, choice, quality, innovation and competition in our health care system. Consumer choice is our top priority. Reforms that foster competition, innovation and consumer choice will help ensure that every American has access to affordable, quality health care.
Health Care America promotes common-sense policies that limit government control and excessive litigation in the U.S. health care system. We believe that unnecessary regulations, mandates and frivolous lawsuits generate billions of dollars in excess health care costs and prevent millions of Americans from accessing the health care they deserve."



In other words, a lobbyist shill.

Great source.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

"Health Care America is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit advocacy organization devoted to promoting the fundamental principles of access, choice, quality, innovation and competition in our health care system. Consumer choice is our top priority. Reforms that foster competition, innovation and consumer choice will help ensure that every American has access to affordable, quality health care.
Health Care America promotes common-sense policies that limit government control and excessive litigation in the U.S. health care system. We believe that unnecessary regulations, mandates and frivolous lawsuits generate billions of dollars in excess health care costs and prevent millions of Americans from accessing the health care they deserve."



In other words, a lobbyist shill

Great source.

Fine. But they site the sources where they get all of their statisctics....so you can look them up and see if they are viable or not. So, you won't even take a look at the examples? How can you tell me you don't know of a single example and then bawk at the examples I have given? Are you saying the examples are only good if Michael Moore gives them?

 

[maddythebeagle]

Sheila Nunn, a Kitchener woman who was suffering seizures was told by her doctor that she urgently needed an MRI scan. She was also told she would have to wait three months to have it done locally. Nunn, who had been suffering blackouts, memory loss, confusion and seizures for two months, did the only thing that made sense. She paid $1,100 US to have the MRI scan done in Michigan. "Wait for MRI tests too long in region" Kitchener-Waterloo Record (June 9, 2007)

That's what I find ridiculous on these examples....As if in the U.S., health care isnt already rationed I personally have had to wait months for endocrinologist appointments...

You are going to get similar denials off care in the U.S. And dont just say go talk with the "Dept. of Insurance", B.S. again....

And WTF with these threads going 20 pages anyway...Mykids is almost always "currently active" if you check below waiting in the weeds...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Fine. But they site the sources where they get all of their statisctics....so you can look them up and see if they are viable or not. So, you won't even take a look at the examples? How can you tell me you don't know of a single example and then bawk at the examples I have given? Are you saying the examples are only good if Michael Moore gives them?

Nah, i think michael moore sucks too.

I dont look at your examples because they're a collection of out[-]liars[/-]liers that arent representative of reality, cobbled together by a group with an agenda, to provide talking points for people such as yourself.

I "bawk" at your examples because 90% of the time you dont have a straight fact and you obviously have a motive to be spending all this time threadbombing any discussion surrounding healthcare.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Nah, i think michael moore sucks too.

I dont look at your examples because they're a collection of out[-]liars[/-]liers that arent representative of reality, cobbled together by a group with an agenda, to provide talking points for people such as yourself.

I "bawk" at your examples because 90% of the time you dont have a straight fact and you obviously have a motive to be spending all this time threadbombing any discussion surrounding healthcare.

IMO - if you don't even at least look at the examples, then how can you say whether or not they are based on reality? As an American voter, don't you want to be deeply informed about both sides of the story? Yes, I am very passionate about this subject. I think that's pretty ignorant to ignore the other side. I've done a lot of research and watched tapes and vidoes with examples from BOTH sides. Yes - BOTH systems have major faults. I just find our system to be the lesser of two evils. Can it be improved upon? YES! But, IMO, a single-payor system is not the best way to go about making changes.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I dont look at the examples because the source is too heavily biased. If I sent you some nice documents that explained how nice it is to be a Skinhead, would you read them and consider them before forming an opinion?

I have plenty of first hand experience with the health care industry to form my own opinions. That doesnt require adulteration by biased sources...either the foil hat alien variety nor the michael moore ones.

It sucks. Theres too much bureaucracy. There are too many people making money off of sick people. There are sick people that cant get care. It costs too much.

Scaring me about taxes, waiting lines, transforming the US into Cuba, and all this other malarkey isnt impressing me a bit.

We've had a single payer system in the form of medicare for some time. I'm halfway there with my current HMO.

Every other major country has implemented these plans successfully and so far the majority of people in those countries like the plan, or they'd have voted it out.

There are exceptions. There are whiners. Go drop by the local emergency room and check out the 30 people with the sniffles all complaining about the long wait.

So what?

 

[Brat]

Bunny, I think you summed it up. No more hasenfeffer for me!

 

[wildcat]

When it comes right down to it, I agree with you on every point. I too think it would be wonderful if everyone had acess to preventive and remedial care....and it wouldn't even be that difficult to pay for that from a tax standpoint....in fact, I would favor a solution that included those benefits. It's not the preventive and remedial care that is costing our country a fortune....it's the drugs and expensive tests and equipment...and expensive doctors and overutilization....all combined with people being, for the most part, sheltered from all of those costs.

If you are going to include doctors on the list, why not include overpaid health insurance executives/professionals? Are they exempt?

 

[perinova]

Cute -

Since you are unaware of a SINGLE example, here are a few more for you to ponder:

Health Care America : Choice

Health Care America : Choice

Health Care America : Choice

I try not to get scared by a few anecdotes. I am sure that anywhere I will be able to find horror stories; including in the United States.
IMHO what really matters is what proportion of people are well served by the system. And of course I am particularly thinking of myself too and try to put myself in some of possible isutatyions in the future. Not only the one that I am now.

The site claims it is non -partisan however... Take a look at who runs it:
Health Care America : Choice

Another thing: The United Kingdom in the 18th spot, Canada at No. 30 and Cuba in the 39th spot. We would probably want to copy the number one, two or three spots instead.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

IMHO what really matters is what proportion of people are well served by the system.

That is EXACTLY the point I have been trying to make all along! It's all about the proportion of people who are well served by the system. But, more than that, it's about the proportion of people who get the best possible services they need in a timely manner when they are really, really SICK! In most populations, the large majority of people are fairly heathy, so people who don't spend a lot of time in their healthcare sytem tend to favor it, regardless of what kind of system it is, because they don't have first hand experience with any of the negatives.

It's not the primary care, routine care or even emergency care that is really a major problem in any system, although an under-funded Medicare/Medicaid system is taking it's toll on primary care in America (and that's affecting a lot of people, because that's the only kind of care that most people require)

The horror stories come from the smaller percentages of the population who need life-saving medicine they can't get access to or who need diagnostic tests that aren't available when needed or who need surgery and can't get it in a timely manner from a high quality, well-trained surgeon. The question is, which kind of system serves the largest proportions of these populations in the timeliest manner with the best quality of care?

One more thing...a lot of people on this board like to site the USA's WHO ranking of 37. One thing people should know is that WHO places much of it's weight on longevity and infant mortality rates when coming up with it's rankings....and there is a lot of evidence, particularly with infant mortality rates, that these figures are not compared on an apples to apples basis among the various countries. The various countries use different criteria when counting these statistics. For example, some countries don't count babies that are not viable at birth while the USA does, so our infant mortality rates are heavily skewed when compared with other countries, and those figures weigh heavily on our WHO ranking.

 

[kcowan]

There are exceptions. There are whiners. Go drop by the local emergency room and check out the 30 people with the sniffles all complaining about the long wait.

So what?

Hey CFB

I think you have summed it up nicely. However, that troll MKLD will ignore your logical arguments as usual and continue with the party line. I wonder how much MKLD is being paid by the post, or is it just job preservation as an HMO broker?

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Hey CFB

I think you have summed it up nicely. However, that troll MKLD will ignore your logical arguments as usual and continue with the party line. I wonder how much MKLD is being paid by the post, or is it just job preservation as an HMO broker?

I always wondered what it meant to be "paid by the post". I didn't know people do get paid for posting, but, now that you mention it, I could see how that could happen. No, I don't get paid by the post. Also, I'm not an HMO broker...I'm a health insurance broker and sell both PPOs and HMOs and employer sponsored benefit plans. I like my job, believe in it, and do it more because I like it than anything else. I have lots of other marketable skills, so if we go national, I have plenty of other jobs I can do....so no, it's not about job preservation either. I could act like I'm talking behind your backs and say nasty things about your lack of common sense and logics as well and tease you over and over again over stupid mistakes, but I have avoided such tactics.

 

[wildcat]

I always wondered what it meant to be "paid by the post". I didn't know people do get paid for posting, but, now that you mention it, I could see how that could happen. No, I don't get paid by the post. Also, I'm not an HMO broker...I'm a health insurance broker and sell both PPOs and HMOs and employer sponsored benefit plans. I like my job, believe in it, and do it more because I like it than anything else. I have lots of other marketable skills, so if we go national, I have plenty of other jobs I can do....so no, it's not about job preservation either. I could act like I'm talking behind your backs and say nasty things about your lack of common sense and logics as well and tease you over and over again over stupid mistakes, but I have avoided such tactics.

MKLD -

I think people get a little suspicious when poster's 700 some odd responses on the ER forum all deal with health insurance issues and do so in a strange style. Just a thought...

 

[Meadbh]

Isn't there a way the moderators can ban this troll?

 

[mykidslovedogs]

MKLD -

I think people get a little suspicious when poster's 700 some odd responses on the ER forum all deal with health insurance issues and do so in a strange style. Just a thought...

It's really the only subject that's of interest to me on this forum. It drives me nuts that a group of people who desire to retire early, at someone else's expense, want to ruin a decent system that serves the masses well by going single-payor, all in a vain attempt to be able retire 10 years early instead of working 'till age 65. In the meantime, our young people will get to pay out the ying yang so that y'all can get what you want, and then, by the time they get to be 55 years old, the system will be reduced to a socialized mess with long wait times for complicated health problems and a separate, private tier, that hardly any of them will be able to afford in retirement. At the same time, hardly any money will be left for them in the social security system either. So, in the meantime, they'll have to pay additional taxes, PLUS save for the possibility of needing private care, PLUS pay into social security, PLUS save for the social security they won't get in their old ages too.

Can the system be improved upon? YES! But why do it with a single-payor system? IMO, in the long-run, that will be nothing short of disastrous. IMO, there are better ways to make improvements to our system.

 

[Brat]

I think MKLD reflects the point of view of the health insurance industry. As much as I disagree with him, it is interesting to read his arguments because they reflect those who will make every effort to maintain the status quo.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

It drives me nuts that a group of people who desire to retire early, at someone else's expense, want to ruin a decent system that serves the masses well by going single-payor, all in a vain attempt to be able retire 10 years early instead of working 'till age 65. In the meantime, our young people will get to pay out the ying yang so that y'all can get what you want

Is that you Ted? [1]

Seems we're getting to the crux of the matter.

It drives me nuts to have worked my ass off 100 hours a week for 25 years and having invested wisely enough to be able to quit working and spend all my time with my family instead of the corporate overlords, only to have it all screwed up by a bunch of insurance company bureaucrats trying to suck my wallet dry.

Kaiser has already shown me what happens when you take the insurance company and pharmacy overhead out of the equation. The price drops by half, the care improves and the paperwork I have to deal with drops to zero.

Perhaps if this community and what it stands for upsets you so much, you should take a hike to one that makes you happy.


Footnotes:
[1] For the benefit of people who havent been around forever, "Ted" was a former poster who was a very smart and astute investor. At some point, Ted (who was not retired) proclaimed his general disgust for all of the people planning to retire early because it was 'our duty' to continue working and 'contributing' to society, and anyone without a regular 8-5 job was a parasite. Clearly a community of people who have retired early or plan to do so was not a good fit for Ted.

 

[Webzter]

> It drives me nuts that a group of people who desire to retire early, at someone else's expense

Double-U Tee Eff?