Did Obama really say this?

[ChumpDumper]

Ultimately the government takes over the types of insurance that private companies won't touch or is too expensive to be practical. Normal heath care will get there soon enough.

[101A]

It's no coincidence that between 2000 and 2007, the top 10 US health insurers saw a 428% growth in net profits. On the other hand, as consumers, we have had to pay more for less coverage over these years (87% increase over the last six years).

You're right, it isn't a coincidence; the baby boomers are getting older, and sicker, and taking lots of drugs. Harley Davidson also exploded with profits when they started having mid life crisis. Should the govt. build motor cycles?

Another clue: the health care industry has seen around 400 mergers in the last decade or so. What we have here is an oligopoly (a near-monopoly controlled by a few players).

I understand the value of free enterprise in improving quality and lowering cost. The healthcare industry unfortunately does not exhibit any of these benefits, the reason being little or no compe ion. GM and Chrysler got their asses kicked by Toyota and Honda, and we all agree that they deserved what they are going through. This sort of thing will never happen the way healthcare is set up. I don't see any harm in the government trying to get them to shape up.

A monopoly is a single player; the USPS, for example.

In Healthcare you have: Aetna, United Healthcare, The Blues, Humana, JP, and literally hundreds of companies like my own that manage self funded plans; ALL competing. Those are marketed by thousands of insurance agents around the country.

THAT"S on the payor side; on the provider side there are the private hospitals the university hospitals, the medical centers, the county hospitals, the catholic hospitals and the hospital systems all competing. Some doctors work for larger corporations, some form practices with other docs, while many go it alone.

There's compe ion throughout the industry - the government, in a fair fight wouldn't make them any more honest than they already are; it would get smoked. The government, therefore, WILL change the rules.

[ChumpDumper]

A monopoly is a single player; the USPS, for example.

In Healthcare you have: Aetna, United Healthcare, The Blues, Humana, JP, and literally hundreds of companies like my own that manage self funded plans; ALL competing. Those are marketed by thousands of insurance agents around the country.

THAT"S on the payor side; on the provider side there are the private hospitals the university hospitals, the medical centers, the county hospitals, the catholic hospitals and the hospital systems all competing. Some doctors work for larger corporations, some form practices with other docs, while many go it alone.

There's compe ion throughout the industry - the government, in a fair fight wouldn't make them any more honest than they already are; it would get smoked. The government, therefore, WILL change the rules.

So all that great compe ion has lowered prices for everyone and will continue to do so!

The system works!

[Warlord23]

Actually the healthcare industry might well go the same way the auto makers went. I think uninsured people are going to increasingly consider traveling outside the US to countries where medical procedures are done at a tenth of the cost and with the same skill.

Medical tourism

The current system is broken. Leaving it as it is will be no different from letting GM remain uncompe ive and eventually decay.

[101A]

Ultimately the government takes over the types of insurance that private companies won't touch or is too expensive to be practical. Normal heath care will get there soon enough.

Now THAT'S good idea.

The government becoming a final stop loss carrier for everyone (maybe at the $250,000 - $500,000 in lifetime claims level) would make some sense; in fact I brought it up a week ago; it could even work; but nobody is talking about such a system.

[ChumpDumper]

Now THAT'S good idea.

The government becoming a final stop loss carrier for everyone (maybe at the $250,000 - $500,000 in lifetime claims level) would make some sense; in fact I brought it up a week ago; it could even work; but nobody is talking about such a system.

I think that will probably be the kind of mandate that will be proposed after the government option dies.

There also should to be something done for folks who want to buy but can't get any kind of insurance.

[Warlord23]

In Healthcare you have: Aetna, United Healthcare, The Blues, Humana, JP, and literally hundreds of companies like my own that manage self funded plans; ALL competing. Those are marketed by thousands of insurance agents around the country.

THAT"S on the payor side; on the provider side there are the private hospitals the university hospitals, the medical centers, the county hospitals, the catholic hospitals and the hospital systems all competing. Some doctors work for larger corporations, some form practices with other docs, while many go it alone.

There's compe ion throughout the industry - the government, in a fair fight wouldn't make them any more honest than they already are; it would get smoked. The government, therefore, WILL change the rules.

If there is any compe ion, how do you explain the fact that this is the only industry that has seen higher prices and lesser value for the consumer (lesser coverage) while ballooning its profits unabated? That is the exact opposite of what compe ion has done in other industries.

The "compe ion" is an illusion. These firms are happy making supernormal profits in a broken system. Unlike a normal market, they have no incentive to do any better, because a normal market wouldn't allow an arbitrary pricing/service policy (the coverage/premium policy). They know they can be profitable with little risk in a system where they make the rules and the consumer is simply a helpless bystander.

[101A]

So all that great compe ion has lowered prices for everyone and will continue to do so!

The system works!

No it hasn't obviously.

What Obama gets, and what many people don't, is that you CANNOT make healthcare affordable when a person is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars the last few weeks/months of life - and the more people there are getting sick and dying the more it is going to cost all of us; no matter how the payments get distributed.

Why was it so cheap in the 70's? Lots of baby boomers paying premium for relatively few old people dying younger than they do today.

Now the bubble is at the old-sick level; lots of sick people relative to the number of young, healthy ones. Add to that new, amazing EXPENSIVE treatments that show a glimmer of hope - but need to be perfected (they do that on dying people), and you get the exponential costs which we are experiencing.

Short of price controls (but that will stunt advancements), or euthanasia, there is almost nothing to do to control costs.

Believe me, I pay claims ALL day long, every day. What is different now is NOT the cost to pay the claims (we are more efficient, as are the insurance companies - it is harder to compete now than then) - nor is the cost of simple hospital stays appreciably higher; what is higher is the frequency and expense of truly bad crap: Cancer; Kidney disease; Heart Disease, etc.....what used to kill people doesn't anymore; we can save their lives, then send them back out, taking a maintenace drug for a few years, until they get something wose, that costs even more, that finally kills them.

People see the costs as a MAJOR crisis; I see the cost as something this country has decided to invest in; remarkable medical care and advances (most come from HERE, after all); ALSO - healthcare provides as many jobs in this country as it costs. 17% of GDP, BUT 17% of the jobs. It is efficient, and cannot be outsourced.

The problem is we have people who are uninsured; we should be focussed solely on that, and not on assuming the system is broken.

[101A]

If there is any compe ion, how do you explain the fact that this is the only industry that has seen higher prices and lesser value for the consumer (lesser coverage) while ballooning its profits unabated? That is the exact opposite of what compe ion has done in other industries.

The "compe ion" is an illusion. These firms are happy making supernormal profits in a broken system. Unlike a normal market, they have no incentive to do any better, because a normal market wouldn't allow an arbitrary pricing/service policy (the coverage/premium policy). They know they can be profitable with little risk in a system where they make the rules and the consumer is simply a helpless bystander.

Do you have the numbers for the health insurance carriers profit as relates solely to their health insurance business?

I send every group I cover (20,000 employees total in Central S. Texas), out to all the carriers, plus some different markets you probably aren't familiar with. Trust me; they compete; if one sets premiums too high, the others undercut them, and they go back and forth till the lowest dollar is found. Carriers can't charge whatever they want; they lose the business to another carrier. Happens ALL the time.

Show me the profit numbers, as a percentage of revenue. What is your source?

[101A]

I think that will probably be the kind of mandate that will be proposed after the government option dies.

I hope you're right.

There also should to be something done for folks who want to buy but can't get any kind of insurance.

This

[Warlord23]

Do you have the numbers for the health insurance carriers profit as relates solely to their health insurance business?

I send every group I cover (20,000 employees total in Central S. Texas), out to all the carriers, plus some different markets you probably aren't familiar with. Trust me; they compete; if one sets premiums too high, the others undercut them, and they go back and forth till the lowest dollar is found. Carriers can't charge whatever they want; they lose the business to another carrier. Happens ALL the time.

Show me the profit numbers, as a percentage of revenue. What is your source?

I don't have the splits or percentage numbers with me. The figures I quoted are from this study by HCFAN (a coalition of not-for-profit organizations):

HCFAN study

I can see how the baby boomer effect can make a difference. However, I find it difficult to understand how this has resulted in premiums going up for the insured, while the insurer's profits are unaffected (indeed, they seem to have been positively affected!).

In the face of a market-wide phenomenon, one would expect both producer and consumer to feel the ill effects. In this case, it seems the consumer is the only one negatively affected.

[jack sommerset]

Asked today whether private insurers would be able to compete with the government plan, Obama responded:

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."






Not exactly helping his own cause.

I want to laugh but I can't.

[Jacob1983]

This is something that Bush would say. Oops, he didn't. Obama is making Bush look like a good president every day that he is in office.

[101A]

FWIW:

Current profit margin for United Healthcare (the biggest payor): 3.2%

CEO compensation: $3.2 Million (A lot of money, but a quarter of what Richard Jefferson is going to make this year, and next to the 80 plus billion in revenue the company generated? A drop in the bucket - and certainly NOTHING lke the Wal Street bankers have been taking in)

[101A]

I don't have the splits or percentage numbers with me. The figures I quoted are from this study by HCFAN (a coalition of not-for-profit organizations):

HCFAN study

I can see how the baby boomer effect can make a difference. However, I find it difficult to understand how this has resulted in premiums going up for the insured, while the insurer's profits are unaffected (indeed, they seem to have been positively affected!).

In the face of a market-wide phenomenon, one would expect both producer and consumer to feel the ill effects. In this case, it seems the consumer is the only one negatively affected.

An insurance company makes profit based on its ability to interpret and underwrite risk - they are getting better and better at it - and they try to stick to a specific profit margin, not a certain AMOUNT of profit; as revenue goes up - so do profits in real dollars, even if the margin stays the same. If the insurer gets the number very wrong; seeing the amount of dollars in claims at risk; it could cause massive meltdown; in fact the Departments of Insurance of the various states keep a close eye on underwriting criteria, to make damn sure the carriers are getting it right; the TDI in particular wants to make sure the carriers are taking profits from other states and using those to undercut compe ion HERE to increase over all participation in their plans - essentially built in monopoly control.

[101A]

I don't have the splits or percentage numbers with me. The figures I quoted are from this study by HCFAN (a coalition of not-for-profit organizations):

HCFAN study

I can see how the baby boomer effect can make a difference. However, I find it difficult to understand how this has resulted in premiums going up for the insured, while the insurer's profits are unaffected (indeed, they seem to have been positively affected!).

In the face of a market-wide phenomenon, one would expect both producer and consumer to feel the ill effects. In this case, it seems the consumer is the only one negatively affected.

I looked at the study you cited; it does make a relevant point; there are areas of the country where a single payor has carved out a monopoly; I live in one here in Pennsylvania (I own a business in Texas - it's a long story), anyway; BC/BS OWNS this part of the country; nearly 90% of the people who have insurance are on it; However, other carriers have recognized this, are in talking to the doctors, and are getting networks set up to compete; BCBS sees it happening, and is getting more aggressive with its pricing - it is self correcting here; however,I CAN see where there are areas so remote, no one is interested in venturing into them, and those people could be at the mercy of a single payor (or seemingly so); the rules allowing people to buy insurance accross state lines could do a lot to end this issue; especially with the web to "shop" in real time.

[Gino]

Really, I have a hard time believing that a public option run by death squad bureaucrats is going to put private insurance out of business.

But I could be wrong, maybe the free-market should fear everyone flocking to the plan that goes out of it's way to euthanize re ed babies and retirees.

The government can drive private insurance out of business if they are allowed to cheat as they do with medicaid. Currently, doctors are not properly paid by medicaid and therefore make up the difference by charging more to private insurance. If the number of people on medicaid is increased by the number theyre talking about, it could force doctors to force those rates even higher. Many people are worried that this could spiral out of control and leave the medicaid option as the only affordable option left.

Thats why the US mail analogy doesnt fit in this context. US mail is a service that you dont have to use. I, personally, havent mailed anything in YEARS.

However, you dont really have a choice when it comes to healthcare. If you get sick you pretty much have to see a doctor.

[Gino]

I think that will probably be the kind of mandate that will be proposed after the government option dies.

There also should to be something done for folks who want to buy but can't get any kind of insurance.

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".

[Wild Cobra]

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".

Next, people won't want to buy auto insurance to pay for an accident, until they are in an at fault accident!

[DarrinS]

Next, people won't want to buy auto insurance to pay for an accident, until they are in an at fault accident!

You beat me to it.


Buying insurance after some catastrophic event kinda goes against what insurance is for.

[Wild Cobra]

You beat me to it.


Buying insurance after some catastrophic event kinda goes against what insurance is for.

LOL...

Another fact that lib s fail to understand.

[ChumpDumper]

Thats a sticky issue. Currently, theyre proposing making it illegal to deny anyone with a pre-existing condition.

So why shouldnt I just wait until Im sick before buying insurance? Doesnt that go against the definition of "insurance".

In the preceding sentence, I stated that there would be mandates for people to buy some minimal kind of coverage.

Like auto insurance.

[DarrinS]

Outside the event: angry, racist mob. Inside the event, a tough crowd, including a 13 yr old girl that asked why there were so many "mean signs".

[Gino]

In the preceding sentence, I stated that there would be mandates for people to buy some minimal kind of coverage.

Like auto insurance.

Whats "minimal"? What if the minimal plan doesnt cover something that I get?

Isnt that the same thing? Shouldn't I just get the cheapest plan possible and then switch up if I get sick?

[ChumpDumper]

Whats "minimal"? What if the minimal plan doesnt cover something that I get?

My understanding is it would be catastrophic coverage -- I couldn't tell you what is or isn't covered.

Isnt that the same thing? Shouldn't I just get the cheapest plan possible and then switch up if I get sick?

So you would be paying into a plan, then you would be paying more for a higher coverage plan.

Sounds better than paying nothing initially, then paying nothing after you are sick.