Psst, they won't get screwed. If Obamacare passes, they just got handed 40 million more clients, on the back of your and my taxes (assuming you're paying some).
Oh, and those 'taxes and fees' that are going to be charged by the government to cover the 'cost' of Obamacare? Guess what - they're going to pass those back on to us all (and the government for those on the govt. ) as well.
Sleep tight!
I know that Humana lost their ass with my company this year...One guy had surgery to rebuild his sinus cavities for some reason and that cost $110,000. Another guys wife has terminal stomach cancer...thats probably costing them $200,000 at least...another employee just had a heart attack and 5 bypasses...that's another easy $150,000...My premiums were about $90,000.
http://www.imdb.com/ le/tt0386032/
michael moore isn't exactly unbiased, but the anecdote here isn't fabricated. the insurance company uses a loophole it created to deny this guy coverage, which effectively would have killed him. of course, bad publicity is more damaging to this company's profits than just paying for his operation, so that's what they did.
how many guys like this didn't have the same luck?
yes, that's why people with pre-existing medical conditions cannot receive affordable health insurance, and that's why there are draconian screenings of any applicant to an insurer. just a personal anecdote here - i had to tell a health insurance company whether or not i participated in drag races in the last 6 years. this is a ridiculous invasion of privacy - what i do in my own time is my ing business, not something for an insurance company to use as part of their formula to determine how much money i'd have to pay them so they can earn profit from me.Again, bull .
Insurance company's make money by correctly assessing risk; and collecting the correct premium to return a profit from that risk. If they over estimate costs, they won't write the case; another, more aggressive company will scoop up that premium; and if they underestimate? They take a bath.
Get a clue, learn something.
for-profit health insurance is inhuman, and judging by how much you suck their you must work for one.
Last edited by greyforest; 09-16-2009 at 04:55 PM.
I was going to write something like this. They're getting screwed by getting a $800 billions subsidy paid by the taxpayers? Well, I'd love to be screwed that way.
@greyforest: 101A knows something about it. I'd say his contributions in the thread function more like an athletic cup than a blowjob, though.
Nobody likes getting kicked in the nuts.
Unless paying taxes becomes voluntary, all these analogies are pretty flawed.
Ok, I have to ask, do you think that someone who smokes, or is grossly obese should have to pay more, less or the same than someone who doesn't smoke, and stays physically fit??
What about for-profit restaurants, supermarkets and farming, are they inhuman as well? And the for-profit housing industry, should it be disallowed?
I understand that emotional point-of-view and how disparaging it is that some people can't afford to buy health insurance. The mistake here is to believe that all problems in a society can be magically fixed by government intervention (or by anyone's intervention, by that matter). For ages, big parts of the population in the western world have starved. People simply couldn't afford to pay food. But today the cases of deaths by malnutrition in the western world are almost non-existent. And it wasn't because the government took over the food industry.
There are no perfect worlds or societies where all evil and misfortunes (or market flaws) are eradicated. You can't change the reality by legislating - or else, an easier solution would be to increase the minimum wage to $100.000 and forbid companies from waiving people. The best way to minimize the problem of those people, IMO, is to increase the compe ion amongst health insurance companies and health providers and adopt a fiscal policy that allows more wealth creation and encoruages the civil society to proppell their philantropic efforts.
Last edited by mogrovejo; 09-16-2009 at 05:44 PM.
oh no the poor insurance companies
capitalism makes sense for a lot of things, but health insurance? there's a ridiculous conflict of interest there.
On the same foot, are you saying that socialized health care makes sense? We've had three experiments in this in this country so far (Massachussetts, Tennessee, and Hawaii), and all have been epic failures and monolithic budget sinkers.
the US is in a league of its own when it comes to healthcare
this graph is per capita btw
Ain't that the truth? So many assholes think that Car Insurance and Health Insurance are the same. It's a pre-1860 mindset. Property and Humans aren't the same anymore.
And your point is?
the US is in a league of its own when it comes to healthcare
this graph is per capita btw
Looks to me that US spends as much per capita PUBLICLY as most other nations; but only covers half its population with that expenditure - the privately pays that much more again; your graph shows in no uncertain terms that the COST of healthcare in the United States; not specifically the funding mechanism to pay for it, is what is SO much higher than in other countries.
But you've swallowed the kool-aid in one gulp haven't you? Insurance Companies! INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!
What about HOSPITALS!!! DOCTORS!!!! PHARMACEUTICALS!!!!! THOSE are the en ies receiving the payments; but they aren't as easy to demonize, are they? For every insurance company not willing to pay for a treatment, there is a provider not willing to give it away.
Why is the profit of an insurance company obscene, but a 7 figure salary for a neurosurgeon not? I purport that NEITHER is inherently obscene; but that if we could bring some level of consumer control into the mix - we could improve cost, availability AND quality. HR 3200 will NOT do that; it will further seperate the consumer from purchasing decisions, and try to manage costs through regulation and fiat; a method that, inevitibly, will result in price controls, followed by rationing, followed by quality deterioration.
Less government, less insurance IS the solution; but that ain't what anyone in government (or the insurance co's) is proposing; surprise, surprise.
And so many people think that the government can actually fix something when it says it can. It's a pre-1930's mindset:
HMMM, what was the big new around 1860 you are referring to?
I got a quote from a hospital, $137K if I had insurance, $37K w/o insurance.
What is the acutal COST to the hospital of delivering this treatment?
Insurance companies are an easy target, and clearly guilty of major contributor to US health care disaster,
but greedy, over-charging, patient-flipping doctors and hospitals/clinics all contribute to the disaster.
mmm, how is that so? I thought consumer would have same decisions and even more with the public option.
are you talking about quality deterioration of medical care, or medical insurance? how is regulating health insurance going to affect medical care quality?and try to manage costs through regulation and fiat; a method that, inevitibly, will result in price controls, followed by rationing, followed by quality deterioration.
what do you mean by less insurance? how is that going to ensure the 20% can afford it?Less government, less insurance IS the solution; but that ain't what anyone in government (or the insurance co's) is proposing; surprise, surprise.
Actually, the insurance company's are in on that, too. Part of any "repricing" contract describes how much of a % discount is to be demonstrated on a bill; the ACTUAL RETAIL price shown on an EOB (explanation of benefit) can change from insurer to insurer -while the "paid amount" - remains pretty constant. The reason? The insurance company's want to be able to claim larger "discounts" (by percentage) in their marketing materials to companies who are shopping.
The real cost? It's what the insurance company's are paying; after all, 95% of the people being treated are paying that amount - obviously that is the target the bean counters at the hospital are looking at. I have negotiated out-of-contract fees with hospitals for clients; I can usually get the price very near, to exactly what, the insurance company's pay. If you pay in advance, you can get it cheaper.
37K B? Hope you're alright.
[quote=hater;3693098]mmm, how is that so? I thought consumer would have same decisions and even more with the public option.[quote]
Consumer choice in what insurance plan they buy - which will be approximately the same; NOT consumer choice/decion making authority where the costs are actually incurred - with the provider. THAT is the key.
Medical Care; and insurance. More and more they become, and by design with HR3200, commodities - the patients are warm bodies, not people. The government will require more and more to be paid for by the insurance plans, as various lobbies and special interest groups get there way...the actual patients are NOT the payors; so they are not given the respect given to someone who can take their business elsewhere; doctors offices will be full ALL the time, so the business, pocketbook, incentive to live by the mantra "the customer is always right" will be non-existent. Doctor's offices often ALREADY act like they are somehow doing you a favor by giving you an appointment, don't they? It will get worse.are you talking about quality deterioration of medical care, or medical insurance? how is regulating health insurance going to affect medical care quality?
First, I agree that everyone in this a country as wealthy as ours ought to have health coverage - so I am not talking about fewer people being covered. Universal coverage, also, would make it easy to underwrite risk.what do you mean by less insurance? how is that going to ensure the 20% can afford it?
I was talking about loess insurance on a per-plan basis. Insurance should not pay for routine, expected costs; it should be there for the stuff that is more expensive, or that nobody saw coming. It is often pointed out that the administrative costs associated with Health Insurance are exorbidant, and they are; Insurance company's are GREAT risk evaluators; and poor administrators (the govt. is good at neither). The most efficient means of lowering costs (Obama said this in his speach, right) is the free market. We ought to put it to work for day to day healthcare expenses.
Just got my notice this week that my premium is going up 15%. I have never been paid out a penny by them. But I try to look at it this way- it means I am grateful that I have been healthy. I hate paying out so much, but I would rather NOT collect on this insurance policy.
Just wait until the government starts taxing your insurance provider to pay for Healthcare reform.
you said purchasing decisions. you meant purchasing medical insurance decision. didn't you not?
this is already the case now, how is the reform going to change this??Medical Care; and insurance. More and more they become, and by design with HR3200, commodities - the patients are warm bodies, not people. The government will require more and more to be paid for by the insurance plans, as various lobbies and special interest groups get there way...the actual patients are NOT the payors; so they are not given the respect given to someone who can take their business elsewhere;
they are already full all the time. and the mantra you speak of is already non-existent. so again, how will it get worse??doctors offices will be full ALL the time, so the business, pocketbook, incentive to live by the mantra "the customer is always right" will be non-existent. Doctor's offices often ALREADY act like they are somehow doing you a favor by giving you an appointment, don't they? It will get worse.
this is an interesting point. but with the cost of health care in this country. I don't think it's possible. I dont' think I can even afford a treatment of a cold without health insurance. and I am not close to being poor.First, I agree that everyone in this a country as wealthy as ours ought to have health coverage - so I am not talking about fewer people being covered. Universal coverage, also, would make it easy to underwrite risk.
I was talking about loess insurance on a per-plan basis. Insurance should not pay for routine, expected costs; it should be there for the stuff that is more expensive, or that nobody saw coming. It is often pointed out that the administrative costs associated with Health Insurance are exorbidant, and they are; Insurance company's are GREAT risk evaluators; and poor administrators (the govt. is good at neither). The most efficient means of lowering costs (Obama said this in his speach, right) is the free market. We ought to put it to work for day to day healthcare expenses.
once again, I was right.
I would choose a public option.
Doesn't matter. Everyone who can afford insurance now is going to have to pay more so that insurance can be provided to everyone else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
