debate on universal access to health care

[julesa]

I live in a flood zone and nobody FORCED me to buy flood ins.
I caled my agent and he said ONLY the gov offers it. There is nobody else that can take the risk.
So, i guess that FORCES me to buy from the GOV? Is that your point? My neighbors DO NOT have FLOOD ins, so nobody is forcing them. It is optional.
I read that the gov only paid 20k for a totaled 100k house (Katrina). Go sue the gov. Obscene cheating by the gov. U want them to pay U? LOL
But blue cross is NOT a gov plan. There are numerous heath plans non gov, and NON PROFIT.

My mistake, I thought FEMA required property owners to buy into the system. Most lenders do require it, but if you own your house outright, then you can be as dumb as you like. $20K will fix a lot of house. I've done flood repair. New flooring, new drywall, maybe new appliances. "Totaled" house? You mean it cost more to repair than to replace? Did the framing rot through or something?

As long as everyone pays much higher taxes, then you can have universal care. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. way too costly.

So how are all these other countries providing universal care for less tax money than we are already spending? For less than half the total money we are already spending?

 

[Matt Gruber]

........
My mistake, I thought FEMA required property owners to buy into the system. Most lenders do require it, but if you own your house outright, then you can be as dumb as you like. $20K will fix a lot of house. I've done flood repair. New flooring, new drywall, maybe new appliances. "Totaled" house? You mean it cost more to repair than to replace? Did the framing rot through or something?

As long as everyone pays much higher taxes, then you can have universal care. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. way too costly.

So how are all these other countries providing universal care for less tax money than we are already spending? For less than half the total money we are already spending?

[/quote]

jules
my sister lived in vermont for 14yrs right at the canada boarder. she says numerous canadaians come across to the U.S. to get US HEALTH CARE. Canada is CHEAP IF U CAN GET IT BEFORE U DIE.
U.S. is FAST and expensive. Take your pick.

. The gov flood fiasco program shows how much u can depend on the gov.
a $100k house can be swept away and you or your bank collects $20k from the gov. on a 100k policy! My worst nightmare is depending to the gov to help me in an emergency. Luckily hospitals make many decisions and save many lives. If we first had to go to a gov office, we'd all be dead. LOL

 

[bobmcree]

if a dog shows up at my front door with a broken leg and no insurance, i will either find a way to help it or to have it put down. We do not put down people, yet. The only alternative is to take care of the people who get sick whether we agree with the way they spent their lives or not. Do i ask the dog if he was good before deciding to be humane? Humanity is what it is all about. We are humans, and we take care of other humans and the species below us. At least that's the way i was taught.

 

[Matt Gruber]

i called my local hospital and they said they don't turn anybody away. insurance is not needed. They will set your broken leg.

 

[bobmcree]

did you ask them if they hounded people into bankruptcy who could not pay the bill?

62% of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were medical bill related. -American Journal of Medicine

the US spends now $7400 per person and 2 1/4 TRILLION on health care each year, while our infant mortality is about 28th and we are below some african countries in lifespan and health of our citizens. WE CAN DO BETTER.

Of course it will be difficult to make a government run health insurance system work. Is it better that we should let for-profit companies stand between us and our doctors when they have demonstrated they will kill us for a buck? We can vote and change the government, at least in theory. We will never find a way to make companies whose business model is denying care to sick people work for our benefit.

 

[Matt Gruber]

did you ask them if they hounded people into bankruptcy who could not pay the bill?

No bob, i had no idea that you intended to cheat them.

 

[bobmcree]

did you ask them if they hounded people into bankruptcy who could not pay the bill?

No bob, i had no idea that you intended to cheat them.

if you mean that bankruptcy is cheating you have bigger hurdles to fight than i do. If you believe i am cheating the hospital that cared for me when my employer failed with his legal obligations, that is another different hurdle. If you are trying to defend the business model of the insurance companies who think that there is a for-profit business to be had in denying care to sick humans, i feel sorry for you.

 

[Matt Gruber]

did you ask them if they hounded people into bankruptcy who could not pay the bill?

No bob, i had no idea that you intended to cheat them.

if you mean that bankruptcy is cheating you have bigger hurdles to fight than i do. If you believe i am cheating the hospital that cared for me when my employer failed with his legal obligations, that is another different hurdle. If you are trying to defend the business model of the insurance companies who think that there is a for-profit business to be had in denying care to sick humans, i feel sorry for you.

Bob,
u said they would not treat you. You are wrong. Now, you don't want to pay your bill, you are wrong again.

 

[julesa]

The Truth About the Insurance Industry

Insurers often complain that their critics don't understand their business practices. It would be hard to say that about Wendell Potter. Potter, whose name sounds like that of a character in a Frank Capra movie, worked in the health insurance industry for more than 20 years. He rose to be a senior executive at Cigna. He was on their calls, at their board meetings, in their books. And today, at a hearing before Sen. Jay Rockefeller's Commerce Committee, he testified against them.

What drove Potter from the health insurance business was, well, the health insurance business. The industry, Potter says, is driven by "two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."

Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it "loses" paying for health care.

The best way to drive down "medical-loss," explains Potter, is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won't, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person's dollar on medical care because he or she won't need much medical care. And the insurance industry accomplishes this through two main policies. "One is policy rescission," says Potter. "They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment."

And don't be fooled: rescission is important to the business model. Last week, at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Rep. Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, asked three insurance industry executives if they would commit to ending rescission except in cases of intentional fraud. "No," they each said.

Potter also emphasized the practice known as "purging." This is where insurers rid themselves of unprofitable accounts by slapping them with "intentionally unrealistic rate increases." One famous example came when Cigna decided to drive the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust in California and New Jersey off of its books. It hit them with a rate increase that would have left some family plans costing more than $44,000 a year, and it gave them three months to come up with the cash.

The issue isn't that insurance companies are evil. It's that they need to be profitable. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. And as Potter explains, he's watched an insurer's stock price fall by more than 20 percent in a single day because the first-quarter medical-loss ratio had increased from 77.9 percent to 79.4 percent.

The reason we generally like markets is that the profit incentive spurs useful innovations. But in some markets, that's not the case. We don't allow a bustling market in heroin, for instance, because we don't want a lot of innovation in heroin creation, packaging and advertising. Are we really sure we want a bustling market in how to cleverly revoke the insurance of people who prove to be sickly?

 

[julesa]

Potter's testimony before Congress:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez...ittee written testimony - 20090624- FINAL.pdf

A few months after I joined the health insurer CIGNA Corp. in 1993, just as the last
national health care reform debate was underway, the president of CIGNA’s health care division
was one of three industry executives who came here to assure members of Congress that they
would help lawmakers pass meaningful reform. While they expressed concerns about some of
President Clinton’s proposals, they said they enthusiastically supported several specific goals.
Those goals included covering all Americans; eliminating underwriting practices like pre-
existing condition exclusions and cherry-picking; the use of community rating; and the creation
of a standard benefit plan. Had the industry followed through on its commitment to those goals, I
wouldn’t be here today.
Today we are hearing industry executives saying the same things and making the same
assurances. This time, though, the industry is bigger, richer and stronger, and it has a much
tighter grip on our health care system than ever before. In the 15 years since insurance
companies killed the Clinton plan, the industry has consolidated to the point that it is now
dominated by a cartel of large for-profit insurers.

 

[julesa]

i called my local hospital and they said they don't turn anybody away. insurance is not needed. They will set your broken leg.

I thought you were in favor of letting sick people go untreated, if you had to help pay for their care, right? After all, the hospitals pass on the cost of this kind of emergency treatment to other patients, many of which are insured by Blue Cross, where you send your health insurance premiums... I would have expected you to be outraged by this kind of freeloading.

/sarcasm

 

[Matt Gruber]

i'd say that is why i have blue cross
they are NON PROFIT
.
I don't take insurance companies too seriously.
I sure was AMAZED when they gave me $8k to replace a 15yr old roof! True i was cancelled, but i got a new roof!(04 hurricane). So while i don't trust them either, sometimes they pay!

 

[julesa]

Some Blue Cross organizations are non-profit, others are for-profit. It's just a brand licensed to various health insurance organizations in different regions.

 

[Matt Gruber]

i called my local hospital and they said they don't turn anybody away. insurance is not needed. They will set your broken leg.

I thought you were in favor of letting sick people go untreated, if you had to help pay for their care, right? After all, the hospitals pass on the cost of this kind of emergency treatment to other patients, many of which are insured by Blue Cross, where you send your health insurance premiums... I would have expected you to be outraged by this kind of freeloading.

/sarcasm

No, they pass on the costs to residents in the form of property taxes HOSPITAL COSTS right on my property tax bill. So i pay directly. I am puzzled by the system.
And I'm not for letting patients go untreated! I'm in favor of pledging organs to pay for costs. EBAY ORGAN CARD. remember? everybody is worth $$$$$$$$$$. I'm outraged that donors now get ripped off!(get ZERO)

 

[bobmcree]

the idea that blue cross is non-profit is a joke. surely you are intelligent enough to understand that the executive compensation that is tied to performance means that they deny care every chance they get? i gave you a bit more credit....

 

[Matt Gruber]

the idea that blue cross is non-profit is a joke. surely you are intelligent enough to understand that the executive compensation that is tied to performance means that they deny care every chance they get? i gave you a bit more credit....

bob, i'm not as smart as you bob, that's why i have coverage, and you don't. i don't get upset about oprah making $50 million. but i agree it is high. I still watch a show if it is good.
Make sure u get the lowest paid Dr. when u go in. Learn first hand what low pay gets you.

 

[julesa]

jules
my sister lived in vermont for 14yrs right at the canada boarder. she says numerous canadaians come across to the U.S. to get US HEALTH CARE. Canada is CHEAP IF U CAN GET IT BEFORE U DIE.
U.S. is FAST and expensive. Take your pick.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Canadians don't go to other countries for health care any more than US citizens do.
http://cthealth.server101.com/myth_canadians'_use_of_healthcare_in_the_u_s_.htm
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19

Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States
Steven J. Katz, Karen Cardiff, Marina Pascali, Morris L. Barer and Robert G. Evans

PROLOGUE: Over the past three decades, particularly during periods when the U.S. Congress has flirted with the enactment of national health insurance legislation, the provincial health insurance plans of Canada have been a subject of fascination to many Americans. What caught their attention was the system’s universal coverage; its lower costs; and its public, nonprofit administration. The pluralistic U.S. system, considerably more costly and innovative, stands in many ways in sharp contrast to its Canadian counterpart. What has remained a constant in the dialogue between the countries is that their respective systems have remained subjects of condemnation or praise, depending on one’s perspective.

Throughout the 1990s, opponents of the Canadian system gained considerable political traction in the United States by pointing to Canada’s methods of rationing, its facility shortages, and its waiting lists for certain services. These same opponents also argued that "refugees" of Canada’s single-payer system routinely came across the border seeking necessary medical care not available at home because of either lack of resources or prohibitively long queues.

This paper by Steven Katz and colleagues depicts this popular perception as more myth than reality, as the number of Canadians routinely coming across the border seeking health care appears to be relatively small, indeed infinitesimal when compared with the amount of care provided by their own system. Katz is an associate professor in the Departments of Medicine and Health Policy and Management at the University of Michigan. Karen Cardiff is a research associate at the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Health Services and Policy Research. Also at the University of British Columbia are Morris Barer, professor and director at the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research’s Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, and Robert Evans, professor at the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research’s Department of Economics. Marina Pascali is a Dallas-based health care consultant.

Abstract

To examine the extent to which Canadian residents seek medical care across the border, we collected data about Canadians’ use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey, the provincial Ministries of Health, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Results from these sources do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States. Indeed, the numbers found are so small as to be barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home.

 

[MitchJi]

Hi,

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/25/headlines#3

Probe: Insurers Force Consumers to Overpay Billions in Health Costs
A congressional probe has found private health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical costs that the insurers should have paid. In a new report, the Senate Commerce Committee says insurers have relied on faulty databases that have led to underpaying on millions of valid claims for out-of-network medical care. Patients have been forced to make up the difference. The report says the databases’ errors were easily disguised because insurers have failed to properly inform consumers on how they calculate charges for out-of-network costs. The databases are owned by a company named Ingenix. The firm has a financial incentive to underpay consumers: it’s a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest private insurers. In addition to UnitedHealth, at least seventeen other leading insurance companies have relied on Ingenix’s data.

Ex-Cigna Exec: Insurance Companies “Dump the Sick”
The findings were released as the Senate Commerce Committee heard testimony from an insurance executive who’s now criticizing his former industry. The executive, Wendell Potter, was most recently a public relations executive for the insurer Cigna until last year. In his testimony, Potter said the industry has deliberately misled consumers with confusing paperwork to deter them from trying to recoup unwarranted payments. Potter said, “hey confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.” Potter also said insurers are using what he called “fear tactics” to derail proposals for a public health plan out of fear of losing profits.

 

[Cackalacka]

Um, BC/BS claiming non-profit is B.S.

The CEO of my STATE's BC/BS made $2.5 mil in 2006; calling them non-profit is a vain attempt to relate them to the Easter Seals or the Komen Foundation.

 

[julesa]

http://www.health-tourism.com/medical-tourism/usa-research/

Medical Tourism in the USA

A Growing Number of American Patients are Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

The medical tourism industry has seen a major increase in the past decade.

Researchers have confirmed that:

* In 2006, about 150,000 American citizens traveled to Asia and Latin America for medical treatment.
* In 2007, the figure increased to approximate 750,000.
* By 2010, experts say the number can increase to 6 million.


American patients are opting to undergo medical treatment abroad for procedures such as: face lifts, heart bypasses and fertility treatments. For many people who require medical treatment, the last thing they want to do is travel. However, due to the high cost of medical treatment in the USA, many American patients are going abroad for medical treatments. Their purpose is to save 50% to 80% on medical treatment conducted by doctors who are often trained in the United States, at hospitals that maintain the precise standards of patient care and safety.

 

[jerryt]

http://www.health-tourism.com/medical-tourism/usa-research/

Medical Tourism in the USA

A Growing Number of American Patients are Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad

The medical tourism industry has seen a major increase in the past decade.

Researchers have confirmed that:

* In 2006, about 150,000 American citizens traveled to Asia and Latin America for medical treatment.
* In 2007, the figure increased to approximate 750,000.
* By 2010, experts say the number can increase to 6 million.


American patients are opting to undergo medical treatment abroad for procedures such as: face lifts, heart bypasses and fertility treatments. For many people who require medical treatment, the last thing they want to do is travel. However, due to the high cost of medical treatment in the USA, many American patients are going abroad for medical treatments. Their purpose is to save 50% to 80% on medical treatment conducted by doctors who are often trained in the United States, at hospitals that maintain the precise standards of patient care and safety.

This article has identified the precise nature of the problem, (begin rant) i.e., that the medical profession has become a veritable gold mine for the elite in the industry including Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, pharmacies, insurers, etc.

Unfortunately, the solution's suggested by this "debate" thread are moot and are akin to dowsing a fire with gasoline. The more these parasites get, the more they want. They are insatiable. It will not solve the problem.

And to think of the government controlling your health care.

Imagine a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles -- but to secure lifesaving treatment for yourself, a spouse or child, rather than simply to obtain a driver's license. What a nightmare." --columnist Carol Platt Liebau
"Governments can't even count votes accurately -- or deliver the mail efficiently. Yet now, somehow, government will run auto companies and guarantee us health care better than private firms? And the public seems eager for that!" --"20/20" co-anchor John Stossel

A real solution will involve regulating (shudder) the amount of monies these zombies can suck out of us while we are sick rather than having the government suck it out of us with increased taxes for their "altruistic" regulation. We also have to preclude lawyers from this feeding frenzy. (rant over)

 

[julesa]

Unfortunately, the solution's suggested by this "debate" thread are moot and are akin to dowsing a fire with gasoline. The more these parasites get, the more they want. They are insatiable. It will not solve the problem.

And to think of the government controlling your health care.

Imagine a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles -- but to secure lifesaving treatment for yourself, a spouse or child, rather than simply to obtain a driver's license. What a nightmare." --columnist Carol Platt Liebau
"Governments can't even count votes accurately -- or deliver the mail efficiently. Yet now, somehow, government will run auto companies and guarantee us health care better than private firms? And the public seems eager for that!" --"20/20" co-anchor John Stossel

A real solution will involve regulating (shudder) the amount of monies these zombies can suck out of us while we are sick rather than having the government suck it out of us with increased taxes for their "altruistic" regulation. We also have to preclude lawyers from this feeding frenzy. (rant over)

I think the USPS is pretty good, actually.

I've said over and over, we do NOT need to increase taxes. The US government is already spending more tax money per capita on health care than most other industrialized democracies total health care spending per capita. Everybody seems to assume that "private markets" are somehow magically more efficient than any government program could possibly be. Yet our private markets in the health care industry are incredibly inefficient compared with every other health care system in the WORLD. Are you guys all just going to continue ignoring that fact?

Private markets don't work efficiently in areas where there is an information imbalance between buyer and seller.

 

[bobmcree]

Unfortunately, the solution's suggested by this "debate" thread are moot and are akin to dowsing a fire with gasoline. The more these parasites get, the more they want. They are insatiable. It will not solve the problem.

according to the latest polls, "these parasites" are in the great majority in america. 75% of us favor a public option and 57% are willing to pay more taxes so that everyone can have access to excellent care. We believe a sliding scale can be worked out so people will pay what they can afford. Of course there will be abuse, but abuse by the insurers against US is rampant now and the rate of increase in the cost of health care is strangling us. You can use all the conservative or republican arguments you want, but we won, we are in the majority, we even have a fillibuster-proof majority in the senate as of al franken, and WE ARE going to pass serious reform.

Do you have a better idea? How are we to stop health insurers from searching back in someone's records to find a note in the chart that there was a mole, then using that information to deny paying for treatment for melanoma 10 years later by calling it a pre-existing condition? If the insurers would agree to stop this kind of bs there might be a chance for them, but THEY are the parasites. They pull this every day; it is a major component of their business model. We do not need a bunch of for-profit businesses whose main purpose is to limit our access to care, and if you do not believe that is what they are in business to do you have not been paying attention.

 

[Matt Gruber]

saw Paul Krugman on Charlie Rose.
he seems upbeat on the pending reform.
Says gov as payor works well.
He'd like to see expansion of medicare with private medigap insurance to cover the gap between what the gov authorizes and what people want. But, he says this won't happen.(complete, sudden switch to 1 payor is out of the question)
.
Seems the gov option is a way to phase out the private system over time, and the tax on income earned used to buy benefits, while only on high benefits at first, will gradually phase in over the longer term (like the AMT did). .
so i think i see obamas' strategy. giving no ultamatims to congress; when the bill has some new taxes to pay for it, he will sign the bill, saying reform is more important than the small tax increase.

 

[bobmcree]

i am pretty much a 'liberal democrat', but i think to get any bipartisan support they should probably tax health benefits as income for anyone earning more than 2-3x the minimum wage. the democratic party does not want to do this because the auto worker unions scream that they gave up wage increases to get those benefits. bullcrap!!! Unionized auto workers extorted those benefits with threats of ruinous strikes, and are the most overpaid workers in history. They do not deserve to have so much better health care than the rest of us. This is exactly what bankrupted the american auto companies and will do it again if we don't fix it.

and to respond to a previous comment regarding my intelligence and lack of insurance, i DO have insurance, Medicare. I would love to have coverage for my wife as well but i am disabled and my income cannot provide that. Now that my back is so much better, i hope i will be able to return to useful work and pay income taxes again, as i did for over 30 years. When I was working and had insurance from a major company, Prudential, through my employer, I was injured in a bike accident and required hospitalization. My MD could do nothing for me, and none of the neuro guys would accept my insurance, so i nearly died. This could not happen if the government was backing the insurance plan.