Jump to content

Health care reform: A simple explanation


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is a good read regardless of how you feel about health care reform.

 

How ignorant can you get.

 

"The public option will be the least expensive."

 

It will be less expensive so employers will dump all employees into the public option, thus kicking you out of your own.

 

It will be less expensive and it will not have to make a profit or pay taxes.

 

Private companies will go broke.

 

Only coverage left will be public option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ignorant can you get.

 

"The public option will be the least expensive."

 

It will be less expensive so employers will dump all employees into the public option, thus kicking you out of your own.

 

It will be less expensive and it will not have to make a profit or pay taxes.

 

Private companies will go broke.

 

Only coverage left will be public option.

duck...they may NOT go broke...they may just lower their prices to become competitive and LOWER their ludicrous profit margins......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you continue to use common sense, you will have to be expelled from this debate. :hysterical:

and Doctors may have to compete as well...no more Bentleys...a Mercedes S500 can suffice....and who need three salt water swimming pools and a pool guy for each one?....hey, flame me...but I have to compete with others why shouldn't everyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ignorant can you get.

 

"The public option will be the least expensive."

 

It will be less expensive so employers will dump all employees into the public option, thus kicking you out of your own.

 

It will be less expensive and it will not have to make a profit or pay taxes.

 

Private companies will go broke.

 

Only coverage left will be public option.

 

I must be real ignorant I guess. The same "big government" that people say can't do anything right is going to be so efficient that they are going to put all private insurers out of business? I guess you're right, I mean the USPS has FedEx & UPS on the brink of bankruptcy, right?

 

One of the proposals is a public option that must finance itself, no taxpayer money. It will keep the insurance companies honest (because apparently the so called "free market" has failed to do so). Health insurance costs have outpaced inflation & health insurance companies are posting record profits in a time where other companies are struggling to survive. Health insurance is the number one expense for many companies (like the one I work for as well as Ford). Something must be done to lower costs. Doing nothing is not an option anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now abortion will be coverd:

 

Lofgren (D-CA) Admits Obamacare Will Fund Abortions

 

The New York Times and FactCheck.org both claim that Obamacare will not allow taxpayer funding of abortion. As this townhall video shows, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) disagrees:

 

Lofgren is correct. The Heritage Foundaiton’s Bob Moffit details how taxpayer funding for abortion survived the House Energy and Commerce mark up process:

 

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) offered an amendment that would require at least one insurance plan to cover abortion in each geographical region. The amendment would also require the newly-created public plan to cover all abortion services, depending upon the fate of the Hyde Amendment, the measure that currently restricts federal funding of abortion. Rep. Capps’ amendment would also allow affordability credits, which are taxpayer-funded subsidies, to be used for health insurance plans that cover abortions.

 

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) jointly introduced an amendment that would specifically prohibit federal funds from being used to cover abortion services. The Pitts-Stupak amendment failed. Rep. Pitts also offered an amendment to block any government requirement on health insurance networks to include abortion. Although this second Pitts amendment initially passed, it was reconsidered and it failed on the second Committee vote. Based on the passage of the Capps amendment and failure of the Pitts and Stupak amendments, taxpayers would end up financing abortion.

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Doctors may have to compete as well...no more Bentleys...a Mercedes S500 can suffice....and who need three salt water swimming pools and a pool guy for each one?....hey, flame me...but I have to compete with others why shouldn't everyone?

 

Good point. This is probably the main reason why the Doctor's Union (American Medical Association) are against the public option. They have a good thing going for them, I'd be against it too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be real ignorant I guess. The same "big government" that people say can't do anything right is going to be so efficient that they are going to put all private insurers out of business? I guess you're right, I mean the USPS has FedEx & UPS on the brink of bankruptcy, right?

 

The federal government can simply undercut insurance companies because it doesn't have to worry about profits. It never goes out of business. It either runs a deficit (see - Medicare, and, soon Social Security) or simply raises taxes to cover costs. Option A is unavailable to insurance companies, and the equivalent of Option B - raising premiums - only works for so long, and will simply drive more people to the public option.

 

And please note that UPS and Federal Express initially succeeded because they offered services that the United States Post Office would not offer. The situation is completely different to the one we are discussing here. With the Post Office, the private companies came in and offered services that the Post Office either couldn't or wouldn't offer. But the Post Office was there first. With health insurance, the federal government is proposing to enter a market where the product already exists, and offer an alternative.

 

One of the proposals is a public option that must finance itself, no taxpayer money.

 

Good luck on that one. State health insurance programs either run a huge deficit, or succeed by limiting enrollment (which undercuts the entire goal of universal coverage).

 

Health insurance costs have outpaced inflation & health insurance companies are posting record profits in a time where other companies are struggling to survive.

 

No, they aren't. WellPoint, the biggest private health insurer on Wall Street, has about 35 million customers nationwide. Last year, it paid out 83.6 percent of revenues in expenses. Net, after-tax income as a percentage of total revenue came to a princely 4.1 percent.

 

In other words, simply eliminating profits would only allow the public option to undercut the private sector by 4 percent or so. Granted, any savings are appreciated, but the idea that we are going to reap huge savings by forcing insurance company profits downward is no more accurate than complaining about "death panels." Anyway, why are profitable companies bad? Is it better that insurance companies LOSE money? (That didn't turn out too well over the long run for GM and Chrysler.)

 

But are their profits excessive? Um, no.

 

Returns on assets, a key measure of profitability, are typically pretty modest. WellPoint's return on assets has averaged 5.8 percent over the past five years; Aetna's, 4.2 percent. Those were, remember, supposedly boom years. UnitedHealth was higher, at 9.6 percent, but fell to 6.4 percent in 2008. These are reasonable, but hardly spectacular, results. By comparison, Wal-Mart averaged a 9.2 percent return on its assets and Dell, Inc. 12.4 percent (one wonders when people will start yelping about Dell gouging hapless customers).

 

Neither WellPoint nor Aetna makes more than $100 per enrollee per year in profits. Given that most insurance plans cost between $4,000-$6,000 per year, the amount of premiums that end up lining insurance companies’ pockets is hardly excessive.

 

Also note that there isn't as much flexibility in insurance policy prices as people believe, because of state mandates. Mandated coverage of certain diseases and conditions drives up the cost of policies, and prevents insurers from offering low-cost, barebones policies (which is what many young healthy people, who constitute a large portion of the uninsured, really need).

 

Which brings up another point - insurance policies are regulated at the STATE level. The federal government left this states this authority under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. States have been the ones enacting mandates on various health insurance policies. So insurance companies may not be able to react quickly to changes in the federal policies.

Edited by grbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Doctors may have to compete as well...no more Bentleys...a Mercedes S500 can suffice....and who need three salt water swimming pools and a pool guy for each one?....hey, flame me...but I have to compete with others why shouldn't everyone?

 

Don't doctors compete now? I know of no doctor who has a monopoly on a particular area of practice.

 

I know of some doctors who become famous for specializing in a certain field, and therefore can command higher prices or fees because their services are in demand. That is why they can afford the Mercedes or Bentley. But that is the free market in action, so...so what? Unless one is required to use the services of those doctors, who cares? If they are successful enough in treating patients to afford nice things, more power to them. If you don't like that they can afford an exotic luxury car based on what their practice charges, then don't utilize their services.

 

Unless the President's final plan is going to force all medical personnel to operate at the same level of mediocrity, so that no one doctor is better than another. Otherwise, I fail to see how it will change this phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. This is probably the main reason why the Doctor's Union (American Medical Association) are against the public option. They have a good thing going for them, I'd be against it too!

right now it seems medical, coverage and insurance comes down to one thing...MONEY! and how much THEY can make....finally the medical profession finds itself under a microscope ala Housing, mortgage, Car Industry etc...just because something is considered mandatory does not mean it should be given a hall pass....irrespective if one agrees or dis-agrees with this/ these bills and reform, I think the AMA, Doctors, Insurers are going to be a lot more wary and toe closer to the dotted line...and HOPEFULLY realize they are doomed unles they entertain the thoughts of being fiscally attainable AND competitive.....they have been laughing and filling their pockets for too long, turning those down that did NOT make a good business case and embracing those with fiscal capacity....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right now it seems medical, coverage and insurance comes down to one thing...MONEY! and how much THEY can make....finally the medical profession finds itself under a microscope ala Housing, mortgage, Car Industry etc...just because something is considered mandatory does not mean it should be given a hall pass....irrespective if one agrees or dis-agrees with this/ these bills and reform, I think the AMA, Doctors, Insurers are going to be a lot more wary and toe closer to the dotted line...and HOPEFULLY realize they are doomed unles they entertain the thoughts of being fiscally attainable AND competitive.....they have been laughing and filling their pockets for too long, turning those down that did NOT make a good business case and embracing those with fiscal capacity....

....or the doctors can simply choose not to accept patients who have "government option" health insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....or the doctors can simply choose not to accept patients who have "government option" health insurance.

and thus continue to lose business and have to price themselves out of the market and atone solely to the weathy...let em chop their noses off to spite their face. If I'm not competitive I lose business, why should ANY industry be different? I would rather sell a bunch at a small margin than have just one home run...maybe THATS a mentality that the medical industry should start entertaining...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and thus continue to lose business and have to price themselves out of the market and atone solely to the weathy...let em chop their noses off to spite their face. If I'm not competitive I lose business, why should ANY industry be different? I would rather sell a bunch at a small margin than have just one home run...maybe THATS a mentality that the medical industry should start entertaining...

The medical industry is not any different, except that under the current payment system they don't work in a free market.

 

Nobody knows what anything (medicinal or procedural) costs. You can find out what Lasik surgery costs (it's usually NOT covered by insurance) by looking in the Sunday Paper, and if you compared the costs today with those from 5 years ago, the cost of Lasik went down.

 

No one asks (or cares) what Viagra really costs, because they only have to pay a $10/25/50 copay. They may not know that Levitra costs less, and have no reason to care.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The medical industry is not any different, except that under the current payment system they don't work in a free market.

 

Nobody knows what anything (medicinal or procedural) costs. You can find out what Lasik surgery costs by looking in the Sunday Paper, and if you compared the costs today with those from 5 years ago, the cost of Lasik went down.

 

No one asks (or cares) what Viagra really costs, because they only have to pay a $10/25/50 copay. They may not know that Levitra costs less, and have no reason to care.

I don't know what Viagra costs...ahem...LOL! You basically underline what I am saying, no-one knows what things cost or what they SHOULD cost...that to me is a licence to steal....as for the Lasik....hey, you can shop that as well....hey, I say wee have drive thru surgery...LOL! pick from a menu!..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But are their profits excessive? Um, no...

 

Almost a BILLION dollars in stock options to ONE man does seem a bit excessive to me. These corporate profits you're stating is after everybody's salaries & bonuses are paid. They pay out as much as they can to their executives & then give the rest to their shareholders. LINK - Last year, Hensley's compensation included $3.2 million and almost $750 million in stock options. Is Hensley worth the $1 in every $700 spent on health insurance in this country?

 

Speaking of Wellpoint, here's some info on their CEO Angela Braly: Wiki Link - As of April 2009, Braly had the 306th highest compensation for a US CEO, having earned $4.07 million. That is 74th among females. She owns $4.6 million worth of WellPoint stock, or .02% of the company. In 2007, Braly earned $14.86 million, mostly in stock options.

 

They hardly seem to be "struggling"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Viagra costs...ahem...LOL! You basically underline what I am saying, no-one knows what things cost or what they SHOULD cost...that to me is a licence to steal....as for the Lasik....hey, you can shop that as well....hey, I say wee have drive thru surgery...LOL! pick from a menu!..

But that is exactly what those on the right are trying to promote: making people sensitive to the costs.

 

Right now the only ones who are concerned with costs (and are hurt the most because of it) are the uninsured. I, nor anyone else, wishes harm to come to anyone.

 

If you insure everyone under the same "all-you-can-eat for one low copayment" system, the cost of health insurance will only go in one direction.....up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ignorant can you get.

 

"The public option will be the least expensive."

 

It will be less expensive so employers will dump all employees into the public option, thus kicking you out of your own.

 

It will be less expensive and it will not have to make a profit or pay taxes.

 

Private companies will go broke.

 

Only coverage left will be public option.

 

Some people juuuuuust understand that part.

 

Peace and Blessings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is exactly what those on the right are trying to promote: making people sensitive to the costs.

 

Right now the only ones who are concerned with costs (and are hurt the most because of it) are the uninsured. I, nor anyone else, wishes harm to come to anyone.

 

If you insure everyone under the same "all-you-can-eat for one low copayment" system, the cost of health insurance will only go in one direction.....up.

 

So what's the alternative, more of the status quo?

 

Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan just got approval for a 22% increase in the premium for individual and group conversion policies, and an interim 4.7% rate increase for seniors Medigap coverage, with a 31% rate increase for seniors still pending. Our State AG, Mike Cox, a Republican, has been fighting Blue Cross, on these rate increases, tooth and nail. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan is the insurer of last resort. A good friend of mine is an insurance agent - he tells me in an email yesterday, that now that BC-BS got a 22% increase, all "competing" policies are going up, indicative of the fact that there really is only very, very limited competition, nonexistent for practical purposes, and it's ineffectiveness in holding down insurance rates,

 

The system is broken. Something has to be done, and more of the same free market approach isn't likely to help.

State_insurance_chief_OKstwo_Blue_Cross_rate_increases.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the alternative, more of the status quo?

 

The system is broken. Something has to be done, and more of the same free market approach isn't likely to help.

Of course not. I don't think anyone believes nothing should be done, however whether you bankrupt an insurance company (by disallowing rate increases) or bankrupt the government (by expecting it to carry the load of everything), you will not prevent bankrupting uninsured individuals by not allowing free market forces to work.

 

And you will "bankrupt" the system unless you increase the supply of doctors/hospitals to meet the demand brought on by universal coverage (ala medicare).

 

You cannot expect everyones healthcare needs to be met (much less improve everyone's healthcare), just as you would expect to hurt traffic flow if you put an extra 47 million cars on the existing road system.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. I don't think anyone believes nothing should be done, however whether you bankrupt an insurance company (by disallowing rate increases) or bankrupt the government (by expecting it to carry the load of everything), you will not prevent bankrupting uninsured individuals by not allowing free market forces to work.

 

And you will "bankrupt" the system unless you increase the supply of doctors/hospitals to meet the demand brought on by universal coverage (ala medicare).

 

You cannot expect everyones healthcare needs to be met (much less improve everyone's healthcare), just as you would expect to hurt traffic flow if you put an extra 47 million cars on the existing road system.

 

Ranger I agree with you.

 

here is an article writtne on the promise of no preexisting conditions. This a a promise that was made by Obama.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/13/...ing-conditions/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...