Real World Event Discussions

Health care reform...why not?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, March 11, 2010 19:40
VIEWED: 2366
PAGE 1 of 1

NIKI2

Monday, March 8, 2010 9:52 PM (P)

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:
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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009
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

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 12:00 PM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 12:53 PM (P)

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.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 1:11 PM (P)

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.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 1:44 PM (P)

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"

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 2:45 PM (P)

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"

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 3:08 PM (P)

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"

NIKI2

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 6:02 PM (P)

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:
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.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/polls-in-key-stat
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

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 7:08 PM (P)

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"

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 7:52 PM (P)

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

NIKI2

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 8:23 PM (P)

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:
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.

http://hcfan.3cdn.net/a9ce29d3038ef8a1e1_dhm6b9q0l.pdf

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:
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.

http://www.ame

NIKI2

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 8:30 PM (P)

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

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:05 PM (P)

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

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:47 PM (P)

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

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 7:34 AM (P)

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

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 7:36 AM (P)

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:
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.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/

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:

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."

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_
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

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:06 PM (P)

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"

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:03 PM (P)

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

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:24 PM (P)

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

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:41 PM (P)

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"

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 6:02 PM (P)

And on THAT point, I do believe we have a consensus.

-F

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 6:45 PM (P)

Hear hear!

Part of the problem, in my view, is that "shit or get off the pot" is something America has trouble with--we try to mix business and government too much, then often have to put regulation on business because it gets out of hand, and away we go with a patchwork society.

I'm CERTAINLY not for total socialization, but I wish there were a way business would regulat itself better on its own; or even take the long view, instead of tomorrow's profits. I'd be ALL for capitalism if that were the way it was, but it's not, sadly.

"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

SERGEANTX

Thursday, March 11, 2010 4:29 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I'm CERTAINLY not for total socialization...

I'm not necessarily saying we have to go to one extreme or the other. But we need to draw explicit lines between them. If we want to provide basic health care for the poor, for example, as a government service, we can do that and still leave the rest of it as a market commodity. We just have to make sure it isn't a cash cow for the health care industry.

And as far as the long view, all of us are complicit in that weakness. That's what leads us into these regulation quagmires in the first place. The financial situation is the perfect case in point. The way to ensure that companies have a healthy respect for the long term is to let them fail when they are shortsighted. But we aren't willing to take the hit to allow that to happen. So we bail them out and the lesson they learn is that those bailouts are pretty cool, and that getting in bed with government is the key to success. It's voters and their reps who allow this crap - because we aren't willing to consider things in the long term and insist that we can have it all, right now.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NIKI2

Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:40 PM (P)

Ahhh, the 'Murikan way: "I want it all, NOW!" Yup.

I'm not sure about the bank bailouts, given the global situation. My instincts say they were bad, but I don't know enough about global finance to be sure. The thing I HATE (given that we ARE a mixed breed between government and corporations) is that they weren't regulated so that they couldn't DO this shit again...instead they're going on their merry way, doing the same damned shit, and nobody's stopping them.

As to health insurance, I'm not sure your solution would solve the existing problems. But a Medicare Buy-In, I think, would go a long ways!

I don't see a strict delineation between the two as possible, given how far down the road we've gone. I see the best start as CAMPAIGN REFORM!

"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