Healthcare reform

[bmags]

Yeah, I don't know where that came from but I think he was talking about this: "An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31% of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis."

 

but, that said, basically every thing i've seen shows many at about 12% adm. costs, which is still very high, and can clearly be depressed in some of these exchanges.

 

And again, they are getting customers ushered into their system. And many healthy.

[lostfan]

Yes, it's 30 million cancer patients.

The only way I can see this not working is if a bunch of people choose to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. That's a hell of an assumption though, people aren't numbers. If I didn't have insurance, and I suddenly can afford it, I'm buying insurance, not looking to save a couple hundred dollars. s***, my whole family is healthy now, but do you see me putting that $400 some-odd dollars a month in my pocket? No...

 

That said, yeah, the fees the insurance companies are going to pay will come out of that new pool of profits they'll have - this was their idea since it was their lobbyists that were involved in writing it, not some evil socialist.

[vandy125]

The only way I can see this not working is if a bunch of people choose to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. That's a hell of an assumption though, people aren't numbers. If I didn't have insurance, and I suddenly can afford it, I'm buying insurance, not looking to save a couple hundred dollars. s***, my whole family is healthy now, but do you see me putting that $400 some-odd dollars a month in my pocket? No...

 

That said, yeah, the fees the insurance companies are going to pay will come out of that new pool of profits they'll have - this was their idea since it was their lobbyists that were involved in writing it, not some evil socialist.

 

I'm not sure I read that right. Are you saying that if you saved a couple of hundred bucks a year by not having insurance, you wouldn't do it? I sure would. Especially since I know that if I were to get something bad like cancer or something like that I could jump into the insurance pool at any time.

[BigSqwert]

I'm not sure I read that right. Are you saying that if you saved a couple of hundred bucks a year by not having insurance, you wouldn't do it? I sure would. Especially since I know that if I were to get something bad like cancer or something like that I could jump into the insurance pool at any time.

Are you serious? You think you'll get affordable insurance, or insurance at all, if you suddenly have cancer as a pre-existing condition? Or are we talking future state with the new bill in effect?

[Balta1701]

[vandy125]

Are you serious? You think you'll get affordable insurance, or insurance at all, if you suddenly have cancer as a pre-existing condition? Or are we talking future state with the new bill in effect?

 

I'm talking future, with the new bill. That's why I wasn't sure I was reading his statement right. It sounded like he was talking about after the new plan is in place. I'm not sure why when the future plan is in place if you are able to save a couple of hundred bucks by not having insurance, you wouldn't go ahead and do that.

[Y2HH]

If anyone said insurance companies don't profit, they're misinformed or lying.

 

They do profit...they just don't profit that much. You know who has higher profits? Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and the like...which will continue to have the same (or higher) profits than they have right now.

 

And I see people spouting these percentages of administrative overhead when it comes to insurance companies, with no evidence to back these claims. From what company? I work for Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I assure you our administrative overhead is nowhere near 30%. That reeks of cherry picking inflated statistics from what is probably the worst run health insurer in the country and using it as a blanket fact applied to all.

 

The bill does a hell of a job curtailing the huge 3% profits from health insurance companies...

 

But does nothing to curtail the even higher profit margins from drug companies, hospitals, etc. In essence, nothing truly changed...we're just going to have raise your premiums even more now. Whether you pay for it or the government/taxpayers help, we're still getting paid. Doesn't sound like much was accomplished in terms of cost savings, which was the key point of this entire thing...

 

Since I own quite a few drug companies (stocks), I just did a quick check of some of the money they make -- oh, and thanks to this bill, I'm banking on those drug companies now.

 

Merck

Revenue: 23,850,000,000

Cost of Revenue: 5,582,000,000

Minus R&D, Admin, and other --

 

5,053,000,000 CLEAR profit.

 

And yes, those are billions, with a B.

 

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Revenue: 18,808,000,000

Cost of Revenue: 5,140,000,000

Minus R&D, Admin and other --

 

5,052,000,000 CLEAR profit.

 

I work for Blue Cross Blue Shield.

 

It would take us 7.5+ YEARS to clear that kind of profit. It's actually considerably longer than that, but I don't have exact numbers so I'm giving an ultra liberal estimation there. In reality, it'd probably take us longer than a decade to turn that.

 

The best part is, part of this reform was made via back room deals with those drug companies -- so those profits you see above, they're about to get a whole lot bigger.

 

Not that I'm complaining, it'll put my kids through college.

 

But the point is, you watched the left hand, when the trick was being done with the right. One TINY area of health care was "fixed", while the larger parts of it were left alone, or actually HELPED. Good job.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

Has anyone heard a good reason why the pre-existing/cap exclusion parts of this bill aren't applicable to adults for another 4 years?

 

[Balta1701]

Has anyone heard a good reason why the pre-existing/cap exclusion parts of this bill aren't applicable to adults for another 4 years?

Because if you apply that 100% without simultaneously applying the mandate/fines for not carrying insurance, you bankrupt every insurance company.

[Jenksismyhero]

So why not do both in 6 months?

[HuskyCaucasian]

I did the same thing. About 75% of my friends are GOPerheads.

Reply 1:

It says I won't either, but even if I do, I am glad to tighten the belt a bit if it means my fellow human beings can get health care. I don't understand the vitriol over this bill.

 

Reply 2:

Kind of reminds me of another great government lie: "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."

 

Reply 3:

How about the lie that was made in the State of the Union speech tha the health care reform bill would not include any Federal funding for abortion? Sure seems to me that there is language in the bill that will allow this.

[NorthSideSox72]

So why not do both in 6 months?

I assume part of the issue here was allowing lead time to the insurance firms to analyze, and implement, the many new rules. 4 years does seem a little ridiculous though, I'm not sure why they need THAT long.

 

[Balta1701]

So why not do both in 6 months?

Because if you institute the mandates and at the same time do not set up and start up both the exchanges AND the subsidies for the unemployed/uninsured/poor, you break the system just as completely, because you're fining poor people for not buying insurance that costs more than they make per year.

 

A phase-in for the exchanges really is the requirement that slows things down. Gives everyone time to develop plans that can be sold in them, gives all the states time to set rules, make deals with other states, etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

Sucks to be him:

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund, said her group was revoking its “Defender of Life” award to Stupak, which was to be awarded at its Wednesday night gala. “Let me be clear: Any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this health...care bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life,’” Dannenfelser said.

 

 

Reply 3:

How about the lie that was made in the State of the Union speech tha the health care reform bill would not include any Federal funding for abortion? Sure seems to me that there is language in the bill that will allow this.

 

How is it that people are this ignorant?

 

I'm not talking about people's stances on abortion, mind you. I'm talking about the fact that not only does the bill prohibit it... federal law already prohibits it as well... AND the Prez signed a needless XO to affirm said law, just to make it very clear. And yet, people STILL think this is some sort of baby killing initiative. This means that they either spouted off knowing absolutely nothing, or knew something and are being intentionally false. Either way... ignorant.

 

So many of the problem we have in government could be solved by voters taking a little time to educate themselves, instead of going purely off the 30 second tidbits they hear on some blathering radio or TV talking head's show.

 

[bmags]

not only that, NSS, but many pro-choicers feel that this bill will be a huge step back, and was a big victory for pro-lifers.

 

Even though they can buy the abortion provision out of pocket, it's one that most people probably will not think to get, and you will see abortion coverage likely dramatically decrease.

[HuskyCaucasian]

How is it that people are this ignorant?

 

I'm not talking about people's stances on abortion, mind you. I'm talking about the fact that not only does the bill prohibit it... federal law already prohibits it as well... AND the Prez signed a needless XO to affirm said law, just to make it very clear. And yet, people STILL think this is some sort of baby killing initiative. This means that they either spouted off knowing absolutely nothing, or knew something and are being intentionally false. Either way... ignorant.

 

So many of the problem we have in government could be solved by voters taking a little time to educate themselves, instead of going purely off the 30 second tidbits they hear on some blathering radio or TV talking head's show.

I've tried to make the argument to several people but they just come back with BS nonsense about loop-holes and backroom deals, and follow the money. I just dont fight it any more. it's not with my time.

[bmags]

If anyone said insurance companies don't profit, they're misinformed or lying.

 

They do profit...they just don't profit that much. You know who has higher profits? Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and the like...which will continue to have the same (or higher) profits than they have right now.

 

And I see people spouting these percentages of administrative overhead when it comes to insurance companies, with no evidence to back these claims. From what company? I work for Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I assure you our administrative overhead is nowhere near 30%. That reeks of cherry picking inflated statistics from what is probably the worst run health insurer in the country and using it as a blanket fact applied to all.

 

Blue Cross/Blue Shield also has the lowest administrative costs from every measurement I've read. There is more than one company.

 

vandy, let me get this right. You would rather pay 750 dollars a year than pay hundreds more to get an actual product in return? And so you will go to the doctors office uninsured after years of (likely) putting off the costs and not taking your symptoms seriously because you'd have to pay out of pocket for the health care costs, and now pay for all the diagnosis equipment they'd need to find out it's cancer, and now, instead of the months or years you could have used to fight the cancer early you waited until it was noticeably affecting you. But now you can jump in easier to get insurance!

 

And you saved a few hundred bucks!

 

You realize cancer kills right? And it's not something you want to play chicken with?

[vandy125]

vandy, let me get this right. You would rather pay 750 dollars a year than pay hundreds more to get an actual product in return? And so you will go to the doctors office uninsured after years of (likely) putting off the costs and not taking your symptoms seriously because you'd have to pay out of pocket for the health care costs, and now pay for all the diagnosis equipment they'd need to find out it's cancer, and now, instead of the months or years you could have used to fight the cancer early you waited until it was noticeably affecting you. But now you can jump in easier to get insurance!

 

And you saved a few hundred bucks!

 

You realize cancer kills right? And it's not something you want to play chicken with?

 

I'm actually in the group that you want to get insurance. I'm healthy, young, and single. So, I would definitely take a closer look to see if I actually do need it. You are probably right that I would go ahead and get it. However, there are plenty of people in just this same situation who won't. I now have a choice here that I can make a pretty significant case for both sides.

 

Before this, it was always the case that you made sure that you had insurance if possible at all because of the pre-existing conditions issue. Now, that is not clear cut at all. If you are young and healthy, your risk has just dropped a ton with not getting insurance and you can save money too. I'm not sure that there is a strong enough push to get and keep the young and healthy in the insurance pool.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Signing in 10 minutes:

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT

VISIT WHITEHOUSE.GOV

[bmags]

I'm actually in the group that you want to get insurance. I'm healthy, young, and single. So, I would definitely take a closer look to see if I actually do need it. You are probably right that I would go ahead and get it. However, there are plenty of people in just this same situation who won't. I now have a choice here that I can make a pretty significant case for both sides.

 

Before this, it was always the case that you made sure that you had insurance if possible at all because of the pre-existing conditions issue. Now, that is not clear cut at all. If you are young and healthy, your risk has just dropped a ton with not getting insurance and you can save money too. I'm not sure that there is a strong enough push to get and keep the young and healthy in the insurance pool.

 

You know how they are estimating that only 32 million will get insurance instead of that full number excluding non-citizens?

 

It's because they already planned for a number of people like that.

 

but 750 is a lot of money...and I just have a hard time believing that many people will look at not getting health insurance as saving money when they are paying that. And even being young and healthy, like me, i still had to visit the hospital twice in college for freak accidents. I think people are well aware of how scary it is to live without it.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Blue Cross/Blue Shield also has the lowest administrative costs from every measurement I've read. There is more than one company.

 

vandy, let me get this right. You would rather pay 750 dollars a year than pay hundreds more to get an actual product in return? And so you will go to the doctors office uninsured after years of (likely) putting off the costs and not taking your symptoms seriously because you'd have to pay out of pocket for the health care costs, and now pay for all the diagnosis equipment they'd need to find out it's cancer, and now, instead of the months or years you could have used to fight the cancer early you waited until it was noticeably affecting you. But now you can jump in easier to get insurance!

 

And you saved a few hundred bucks!

 

You realize cancer kills right? And it's not something you want to play chicken with?

 

You and I have completely different views on the role of health care. You assume that whatever hospitals/doctors/drug ads tell you, that you have a problem that can be easily fixed with treatment. I view it the opposite way. Ignoring the obvious benefits of preventative treatment for serious diseases, this country is over medicated and over treated for a variety of things that 100 years ago would have been ignored because it was part of being a human. Feeling blue today, take a pill! Want to lose weight, take a pill! Have a restless leg, take a pill! Have a little soreness and ache, take a pill!

 

As a litigation attorney I review thousands of pages of medical records a month. It's astounding how much money is wasted by people going to their doctor (or worse, the ER) for normal, every day things. It's an insane amount of wasted money.

[Cknolls]

I'm not sure I read that right. Are you saying that if you saved a couple of hundred bucks a year by not having insurance, you wouldn't do it? I sure would. Especially since I know that if I were to get something bad like cancer or something like that I could jump into the insurance pool at any time.

 

 

Yeah its not like were in a recession and every dollar counts or something. What's a few hundred bucks a year.

[Cknolls]

Has anyone heard a good reason why the pre-existing/cap exclusion parts of this bill aren't applicable to adults for another 4 years?

 

 

I would think the cost of implementing them sooner would have put the price tag on this bill well over the trillion dollar mark. Just a guess.

[vandy125]

You know how they are estimating that only 32 million will get insurance instead of that full number excluding non-citizens?

 

It's because they already planned for a number of people like that.

 

but 750 is a lot of money...and I just have a hard time believing that many people will look at not getting health insurance as saving money when they are paying that. And even being young and healthy, like me, i still had to visit the hospital twice in college for freak accidents. I think people are well aware of how scary it is to live without it.

I'm not sure that I share your optimism, but who knows? I do know that young and healthy people tend to feel invincible. So, there needs to be an incentive there for them to buy into it. Considering other costs they have to pay, like for their education, insurance may go on the chopping block.

[BigSqwert]

And here we go.